Re: Of Paradise And Power Re: Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize: Sid Harth
Sid Harth
US Defense Secretary tells Senate Taliban-ruled areas could again
become sanctuary for al-Qaida, and staging area for militant groups on
the offensive in Pakistan
VOA News 02 December 2009
Photo: AP
From (L), Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Defense Secretary
Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen testify on
Capitol Hill in Washington, 02 Dec 2009
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates says failure of the international
military effort in Afghanistan would mean a Taliban "takeover" of much
of the country.
Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee Wednesday that Taliban-
ruled areas could again become a sanctuary for al-Qaida, and a staging
area for militant groups on the offensive in Pakistan. He said
success for the extremists would strengthen al-Qaida, and would
provide renewed opportunities for recruitment, fundraising and
sophisticated operations for the terror network.
Gates is testifying along with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen.
Late Tuesday, President Barack Obama announced plans to send 30,000
more American troops to Afghanistan. He said the additional U.S.
forces will help accelerate the transfer of responsibility for
Afghanistan's security to Afghan forces, and will allow U.S. troops to
begin leaving the country by July 2011.
Speaking at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, New York,
President Obama said the common security of the world is at stake,
with al-Qaida planning new terrorist attacks from safe havens along
the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
At the congressional hearing, Secretary Clinton said that among a
range of difficult choices, the new strategy is the best way to
protect the U.S. and its allies. She said setting a time frame for a
transition will provide a sense of urgency in working with the Afghan
government.
The additional troops are to be deployed in weeks and will focus on
fighting the insurgency, securing key population centers and training
Afghan security forces.
The president appealed to U.S. allies to contribute additional troops
and resources. There are some 39,000 non-U.S troops serving in
Afghanistan under NATO. The extra deployments will bring the number
of U.S. troops in Afghanistan to about 100,000.
Senior administration officials say all the U.S. forces will be in
place in about six months. President Obama said the troop surge will
cost about $30 billion in the coming year.
The Obama administration is struggling to counter declining U.S.
public support and rising casualties in the eight-year war. Mr. Obama
said the U.S. commitment to Afghanistan is not "open-ended."
...and I am Sid Harth
Sid Harth
President Barack Obama unveiled new US strategy for the war in
Afghanistan in an address at the 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.
Sid Harth
U.S. President Barack Obama has announced his new strategy for
Afghanistan, which has military and civilian goals. Reaction from
Kabul is mixed.
Sean Maroney | Kabul 02 December 2009
Photo: AFP
Afghan Foreign Minister Rangin Dadfar Spanta (file photo)
U.S. President Barack Obama has announced his new strategy for
Afghanistan, which has military and civilian goals.
U.S. President Barack Obama spoke directly to the people of
Afghanistan as he outlined his new strategy for their country.
"I want the Afghan people to understand - America seeks an end to this
era of war and suffering," the president said. "We have no interest
in occupying your country."
Following Mr. Obama's speech, Afghan Foreign Minister Rangin Dadfar
Spanta spoke to reporters.
He says the Afghan government considers President Obama's announcement
important for Afghanistan, the region overall and future U.S.-Afghan
relations.
But while the Afghan government responded positively to Mr. Obama's
plan, the reactions from ordinary Afghans in Kabul were mixed.
Sulaiman Khel is from Paktika province. He says his message to
President Obama is very simple: Do not send more troops. He says
Afghanistan needs financial support, not more foreign troops.
Mujeeb-u-Rahman is a student in Kabul. He says he believes that if
there are more American troops in Afghanistan, security will improve.
Sayed Abdullah is an Afghan government employee in Kabul. He says Mr.
Obama should just send the money instead of the troops. He says he
believes the security situation will get worse if there are more
foreign troops in Afghanistan.
Abdul Rauf Mangal is a businessman from Khost province. He says Mr.
Obama's promise to strengthen the Afghan security forces is a good
idea, and that Afghans will support him. He says just giving money to
Afghanistan is not enough.
This has been the deadliest year for foreign troops in Afghanistan
since the U.S.-led invasion toppled the Taliban government eight years
ago.
Mr. Obama said late Tuesday the United States supports efforts by the
Afghan government to reconcile with Taliban militants who lay down
their weapons and reject violence. The U.S. president also said he
hopes to start withdrawing American troops in July 2011.
People in Kabul embraced these concepts. They also approved of Mr.
Obama's so-called "civilian surge," a U.S.-Afghan partnership that
would help expand the country's agricultural sector.
http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/asia/Afghan-Reaction-Mixed-Toward-New-US-Strategy-78326622.html
Sid Harth
November 23, 2009 in Afghanistan,
The last five days in Kabul were extremely busy. The main story:
Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s inauguration. Or more importantly:
the promises he made in his inaugural address. Afghanistan’s allies
were paying close attention. Watch my television report below for a
summary of the speech: Watch Video
It appears Mr. Karzai is working fast to make good on at least some
his promises. Late Sunday, his office issued a decree asking
Afghanistan’s High Office of Oversight and Anti-corruption to prepare
for a national conference within one month. The conference will bring
together Afghan government officials, analysts and members of Afghan
civil societies to discuss how to combat government corruption.
However, the make-up of this conference does beg the question: How can
you find effective ways to combat government corruption when you are
inviting government officials to participate? The conference’s
findings should be interesting.
Mr. Karzai has made numerous pledges to tackle the issue, but the
problem
has deteriorated since he first took office in early 2002.
Transparency International released a poll last week that showed
Afghanistan is now perceived to be the second-most corrupt country in
the world behind Somalia.
Also in his inaugural address, President Karzai reached out to
militants without links to international terrorism to help in the
reconstruction of Afghanistan. But following the tightly-guarded
inauguration ceremony, it seemed the militants gave their response.
Afghan officials said a suicide bomber in the south of the country
killed 10 civilians and wounded 13 others. A separate bombing also
the same day killed two U.S. soldiers in eastern Zabul province.
There were several other attacks in the days that followed, including
an assassination attempt on an influential member of parliament, a
suicide bombing, roadside bombings and a rocket attack near the Serena
Hotel in Kabul.
President Karzai said it is his goal to have Afghan forces take the
lead for all security operations by the end of his new five-year
term. Judging by the continued violence, it may be a long five years.
Interview With Afghanistan’s Corruption Czar
November 8, 2009 in Afghanistan,
I had the opportunity today to sit down in Kabul with Mohammad Yasin
Osmani, the head of Afghanistan’s High Office of Oversight and Anti-
corruption.
Maroney Interview with Mohammad Yasin Osmani
In American parlance, Osmani is Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s
“Corruption Czar.” He is responsible for overseeing the fight against
corruption in the Afghan government.
It is a daunting task. Osmani’s office is less than a year old, and
he says it is only 30-percent staffed. It also is at the center of a
storm of international criticism.
I asked him about a recent article in The Times of London, which
quoted Afghan officials as saying U.S. President Barack Obama gave Mr.
Karzai six months to address corruption or risk losing American
support. Osmani would not comment on the specifics of the article,
but he agreed with the six-month time frame for reducing corruption.
He says that within that time, Afghan ministers must examine all their
employees to determine if they were hired on the basis of merit or
cronyism.
We spoke at length about how his office does not have the authority to
investigate or prosecute, it can only “oversee” the strategy to fight
corruption. But he said that with the assistance of Afghanistan’s
international partners, including the U.S. Department of Justice, his
office has helped draft a new law that would grant it more power in
the process.
I asked him about British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s comments this
week about the Afghan government. English may not be Osmani’s first
language, but I did detect a strong hint of sarcasm when he said that
he was “so happy that [Afghanistan's] international partners are so
keen to bring this up.” He said fighting corruption is a complicated
process, especially when Afghanistan still lacks a comprehensive legal
code. But he said there have been some successes.
Osmani told me how Afghan officials have prevented about $200 million
in corruption after simplifying the process for registering a
vehicle. The process originally took about a month and up to 20,000
Afghanis — roughly $400 — in bribes to register. Now, Osmani says the
process takes two days and no money.
Osmani says he is committed to uncovering corruption at all levels of
Afghanistan’s government, despite the risks. And after looking at the
country’s recent history, including the past presidential election, he
certainly has his work cut out for him.
A Look at Fighting Voter Fraud in Afghanistan
October 21, 2009 in Afghanistan,
Election officials in Afghanistan have a lot to consider about how to
eliminate — or at the very least minimize — voter fraud in the
country’s November 7th presidential runoff.
http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-10-21-voa5.cfm
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in a television interview that
the United Nations wants to replace more than half of the country’s
380 district election heads as one way to make the second round more
credible.
But the U.N. spokesman in Afghanistan told me today that staffing is
just one of the many things Afghan election officials have to consider
in the coming weeks.
Click here for the story.
Meanwhile in Pakistan, authorities closed many schools a day after two
suicide bombers attacked the International Islamic University in
Islamabad, killing four people at a faculty building and a women’s
cafeteria.
Separately, surveillance video footage from one of last week’s attacks
in Lahore made its rounds on local media channels. The attack was on
the country’s Federal Investigation Agency, which is similar to the
Federal Bureau of Investigation in the United States. Watch Video
Also, Pakistani helicopter gunships attacked Taliban strongholds near
the Afghan border on the fifth day of an offensive in the tribal
region of South Waziristan.
Officials say troops are facing fierce resistance as they fight to
gain control of Kotkai, the hometown of the leader of the Pakistani
Taliban, Hakimullah Mehsud.
Sid Harth
Wed Dec 2, 2009 9:26am EST
Wednesday, 11 Nov 2009 06:07pm EST WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The first
deployments of a 30,000-strong "surge" announced by President Barack
Obama will start arriving in Afghanistan in 2-3 weeks, U.S. Defense
Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday.
Gates said in prepared testimony the surge would last 18-24 months and
added that the goal of starting to transfer security responsibility to
Afghan forces in mid-2011 was "critical - and, in my, view
achievable."
(Reporting by Andrew Quinn and Phil Stewart; Editing by Vicki Allen)
http://www.reuters.com/article/gc05/idUSTRE5B132J20091202
chatnoir
> Pentagon: Failure in Afghanistan Would Mean Taliban 'Takeover'
>
> US Defense Secretary tells Senate Taliban-ruled areas could again
> become sanctuary for al-Qaida, and staging area for militant groups on
> the offensive in Pakistan
>
Pakistan is coming apart anyway!
Amazing since 9/11 was planned in Germany, Spain and the US!
ltlee1
> On Dec 2, 9:51 am, Sid Harth <sharth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Pentagon: Failure in Afghanistan Would Mean Taliban 'Takeover'
>
> > US Defense Secretary tells Senate Taliban-ruled areas could again
> > become sanctuary for al-Qaida, and staging area for militant groups on
> > the offensive in Pakistan
>
> Pakistan is coming apart anyway!
Implicatons: More Islamic fundamentalists. Bad news for the rest of
the world.
Sid Harth
By Samantha L. Quigley
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Dec. 2, 2009 – Civilian partnerships, in combination with
military efforts, are crucial to success in Afghanistan, Secretary of
State Hillary Rodham Clinton told the Senate Armed Services Committee
today.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton testifies before the Senate
Armed Services Committee, along with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates
and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, on
President Barack Obama's strategy in Afghanistan. Washington, D.C.,
Dec. 2, 2009. DoD photo by U.S. Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Chad J.
McNeeley
(Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution image
available.
The current civilian effort would expand through a “civilian surge” if
Congress approves Obama’s strategy for the way ahead, Clinton said.
“Civilian experts and advisors are helping to craft policy inside
[Afghan] government ministries, providing development assistance in
the field, and working in scores of other roles,” the secretary said.
“When our Marines went into Nawa this July, we had civilians on the
ground with them to coordinate assistance the next day.”
For the nonmilitary portion of the president’s strategy to be
effective, Clinton said, the Afghan people and the United States must
hold Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s government accountable for
keeping its promise to fight corruption and improve governance. The
State Department intends to help in strengthening Afghan institutions
at every level of society so that the country doesn’t fall into chaos
when U.S. troops begin to withdraw in 2011, she added.
As part of the effort to shore up Afghanistan and prepare it to take
responsibility for its own security, the civilian strategy involves
supporting an Afghan-led effort to welcome Taliban members who want to
become productive members of Afghan society.
“We understand that some of those who fight with the insurgency do so
not out of conviction, but due to coercion or money,” Clinton said.
“All Afghans should have the choice to pursue a better future if they
do so peacefully, respect the basic human rights of their fellow
citizens and reintegrate into their society.”
The economy is another factor in the State Department’s key to success
in Afghanistan, Clinton told the senators. A civilian corps with
expertise in such things as governance and agriculture -- the
traditional core of the Afghan economy -- will go a long way to
bolstering the country’s independence, she said.
“We will be delivering high-impact assistance and bolstering
Afghanistan’s agricultural sector,” the secretary said. “This will
create jobs, reduce the funding that the Taliban receives from poppy
cultivation, and draw insurgents off the battlefield.”
The State Department’s role in stabilizing Afghanistan will take it
outside that country’s borders to neighboring Pakistan, Clinton said.
The country of 175 million with a nuclear arsenal and its own
challenges must become a key partner in the fight against violent
extremism, she said, noting that terrorist attacks in Pakistan earlier
this year have made the country increasingly aware that it shares a
common enemy with the United States.
“We will significantly expand support intended to help develop the
potential of Pakistan and its people,” she said. “We will do so by
demonstrating the United States’ commitment to addressing problems
that affect the everyday
lives of Pakistanis and bring our people closer together.”
The partnership also will bolster the country, currently a safe haven
for and target of terrorists, against the threat of extremism, said
the secretary added.
The United States will not face these challenges, military or
civilian, alone, Clinton said. “We share this responsibility with
governments around the world,” she told the Senate panel.
The United States is looking beyond NATO to build the broadest
possible global coalition to meet the challenges ahead, Clinton said.
“Our NATO allies have already made significant contributions of their
own in Afghanistan, … and we’re also asking the international
community to expand its support to Pakistan.”
The United States faces a range of difficult choices in Afghanistan
and Pakistan, Clinton acknowledged, and she said the president’s plan
represents the “best way we know to protect our nation today and in
the future.”
That plan also involves sending an additional 30,000 U.S. troops into
the fight.
“We will be asking them – and the American people who support them –
to make extraordinary sacrifices on behalf of our country,” Clinton
said. “I want to assure the committee … that we will do everything we
can to make sure their sacrifices are honored and make our nation
safer.”
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=56905
Sid Harth
By Gerry J. Gilmore
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Dec. 2, 2009 – President Barack Obama’s decision to send
30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan signifies a dramatic turning
point for the U.S. and coalition mission there, Army Gen. Stanley A.
McChrystal told his staff in Kabul today.
McChrystal, commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, cited
British Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s November 1942 speech
following the allied forces’ victory over Axis troops at the Second
Battle of El Alamein.
“I think we are at an inflection point” in Afghanistan, McChrystal
said. Paraphrasing Churchill, he added: “I don’t think this is the
end. I don’t even think it’s the beginning of the end. But I do
believe it’s the end of the beginning.”
U.S. and coalition forces, McChrystal said, are providing the Afghan
government and its citizens the “time, space, and capability to defend
their sovereignty.” America’s allies and enemies, he said, will watch
avidly as the U.S. surge of forces into Afghanistan gets under way.
And, as the surge builds, McChrystal vowed to confront Taliban and al-
Qaida insurgents “with even greater vigor.”
Yet, U.S. and coalition assistance in the training and development of
more Afghan soldiers and police “is the most important thing we do in
the future” in Afghanistan, McChrystal said. To achieve true victory
over the insurgents, he said, Afghanistan must eventually be defended
by the Afghans themselves.
Meanwhile, “a tremendous amount of things are going to happen, and
they are good things that are going to happen” in Afghanistan,
McChrystal said.
In a statement released today, McChrystal acknowledged that many
challenges confront U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan. However,
“neither the Afghan people nor the international community want
Afghanistan to remain a sanctuary for terror and violence,” he said in
the statement.
“The coalition is encouraged by President Obama’s commitment, and we
remain resolute to empowering the Afghan people to reject the
insurgency and build their own future,” McChrystal stated.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=56919
Sid Harth
By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service
NEW YORK, Dec. 2, 2009 – Aerospace assets will be critical to the
success of stepped-up operations in Afghanistan – from delivering
troops to ferrying logistical support to providing lifesaving
intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities to ground
forces, Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn told industry
executives here today.
Lynn told several hundred Aerospace and Defense Conference attendees
that he firmly supports President Barack Obama’s new force commitment
and revised strategy in Afghanistan, announced last night at the U.S.
Military Academy at West Point, N.Y.
“The situation there is serious,” Lynn said. “New terrorist attacks
against our homeland are being planned there now, including a recent
plot disrupted by American authorities. Those facts compel us to
act.”
Lynn said the 30,000 additional U.S. troops to join the fight in
Afghanistan will support the overarching goal there: to disrupt,
dismantle, and defeat al-Qaida in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, and
to prevent terrorists from threatening the United States and its
allies.
”We must deny al-Qaida a safe haven,” he said. “We must reverse the
Taliban’s momentum, especially in the population centers of
Afghanistan. And we must strengthen Afghanistan’s government and
security forces.”
Emphasizing that the U.S. military commitment in Afghanistan isn’t
open-ended, Lynn said the troop surge will speed up the process of
transferring security responsibility to Afghan security forces. That,
he said, will set conditions to begin a drawdown of combat forces in
the summer of 2011.
Lynn emphasized the importance of the contributions the aerospace
industry is making toward that goal, despite a particularly
challenging operational environment.
“In a landlocked nation with few workable roads, helicopter lift and
cargo aircraft make possible almost everything we do -- from dumps of
food, fuel and ammunition to maneuver support,” he told the group.
“It’s hard to imagine a more difficult place to support combat
operations.”
Aerospace capabilities are directly supporting warfighters, he said,
providing combat air patrols and search-and-rescue teams, and ISR
platforms keep watch over troops 24/7 in Afghanistan’s most remote
corners.
Much of this enhanced ISR capability didn’t even exist when the
conflict in Afghanistan began, Lynn noted. He credited investments in
technology and manpower that now provide commanders actionable
intelligence in minutes.
Lynn applauded the industry’s partnership with the Defense Department
in its quest to provide these and other new capabilities that directly
support warfighters on the ground.
“Without question, our offense against the Taliban and al-Qaida
depends on air power,” he said.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=56921
Sid Harth
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Dec. 1, 2009 – The Afghanistan strategy review included
many options, but President Barack Obama deemed the increase of 30,000
U.S. troops to institute counterinsurgency operations was the best
one.
Cadets listen to President Barack Obama’s Afghanistan policy speech at
the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., Dec. 1, 2009. White
House photo by Lawrence Jackson
(Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution image
available.
The president said the national security leadership team discussed the
concerns that many people have about U.S. involvement in Afghanistan.
He addressed them in his speech tonight at the U.S. Military Academy
at West Point, N.Y.
Obama said there are many who say that the war in Afghanistan is like
the U.S. war in Vietnam.
“They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we are better off
cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing,” he said. “Yet this
argument depends upon a false reading of history.”
Unlike Vietnam, a broad coalition supports the effort in Afghanistan,
the president said. The Taliban is an extremist group, not a popular
front like the Viet Cong.
“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,” Obama said. “To
abandon this area now – and to rely only on efforts against al-Qaida
from a distance – would significantly hamper our ability to keep the
pressure on al-Qaida, and create an unacceptable risk of additional
attacks on our homeland and our allies.”
Other people say that the 68,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan are
enough.
“This would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through,
and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there,” the president
said. “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.”
Still others criticize the strategy for identifying a timeframe for
transition to Afghan responsibility. They say there should be 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,” Obama said.
“I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what can
be achieved at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to
secure our interests.”
No timeframe also means no urgency, the president said. “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,” he said.
The cost of the effort in Afghanistan will still be high.
“All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars,” Obama said. “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 for the military this year, and I will work closely with
Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our
deficit.”
Succeeding in Afghanistan will not be easy, the president said, but it
can be done.
“The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly,
and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan,” he said. “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, failed states and diffuse enemies.”
But the United States can do this if Americans stick together and
respond to our highest aspirations. “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,” the president said.
Since World War II, American servicemembers have spilled their blood
in many countries. The Marshall Plan helped rebuild Europe, and
America has joined with allies to create 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,
Obama said.
“We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at
times made mistakes,” he said. “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.”
This is because the United States has not sought world domination.
“Our union was founded in resistance to oppression,” he said. “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.”
The president told the Corps of Cadets that Americans of today are
“heirs to a noble struggle for freedom,” and that freedom is again
challenged.
America is a vast and diverse place, Obama said, and Americans can
disagree. “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,” he said.
The war began with horrific acts of murder, and those united Americans
to defend the country and U.S. values.
“I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity
again,” the president said. “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.”
He said America is 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,” he said. “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.”
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=56899
Sid Harth
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Dec. 1, 2009 – Military leaders “fully and unhesitatingly”
support President Barack Obama’s decision on the U.S. strategy in
Afghanistan, Navy Adm. Mike Mullen said today.
In an interview, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said the
strategy calls for 30,000 more U.S. servicemembers to be sent to
Afghanistan.
The strategy is based on a very deliberate and educational process,
Mullen said. “It has allowed us to explore the breadth and depth of
this enormously complex challenge, and in the end, the president has
made the decision to add these 30,000 troops,” he said.
The increase will give Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of U.S.
and NATO forces in Afghanistan, what he needs over the next 12 to 18
months, the chairman said. McChrystal has the flexibility to put them
where needed.
The president has considered military leaders’ opinions and concerns
in his decision, Mullen said. “I’ve been at the table in these
discussions from beginning to end, and my voice has been heard,” he
said. “I’m very comfortable with that. I’ve provided my advice to the
president, and as is always the case, we provide the advice, the
president makes a decision, and we all march off and execute that
decision.”
The president’s strategy also focuses on the requirements of U.S.
civilian agencies and seeks assistance from NATO allies. Mullen said
he expects to hear from the NATO partners in the next few days and is
“cautiously optimistic we’ll see additional support from NATO.”
The strategy also demands much from Afghanistan, calling on Afghan
President Hamid Karzai to help grow Afghan security forces rapidly,
provide good governance at the local and national levels, and “to
really take responsibility for their own country,” Mullen said. “It’s
a big challenge.”
Obama’s decision has it right in giving McChrystal the forces he needs
to execute the strategy, the chairman said. “We’re all confident in
that, and I’m actually confident that we can succeed at this
endeavor,” he said.
U.S. forces will be focused on a counterinsurgency, population-centric
mode. “The key goal here is to reverse the momentum of the Taliban,”
Mullen said. “The insurgency has gotten worse over the past couple of
years.”
Deployment lengths for U.S. servicemembers will remain about the same
– seven months for Marines, and 12 months for soldiers. With the
planned reduction in U.S. forces in Iraq to 50,000 by August 2010,
Mullen said he doesn’t expect an adverse affect on dwell time – the
time between deployments. Dwell time will increase slightly for
Marines over the next year and for soldiers over the next two years,
he said.
Soldiers and Marines – and some airmen and sailors – will feel
pressure from this strategy. “It’s a team deal: we’re all in this
together, and we can succeed here,” the chairman said. “Now that the
president has made the decision, we will be off and running to make it
so over the next few years.”
The strategy sends a message of resolve. With the contemplated
increase, Obama will have increased the number of U.S. troops in
Afghanistan by more than 50,000 since taking office in January. Mullen
said the president’s decision “focuses on the commitment to turn this
around and it gives Gen. McChrystal the forces he needs to do the
job.” He said all military leaders agree with the decision and the
strategy.
Still, the president is not writing a blank check for the Afghans, the
chairman said. “The president is really sending the message that we
are not going to be there forever,” Mullen said. “This strategy really
focuses on transferring responsibility to the Afghans as quickly as we
can.”
The strategy is not an exit strategy per se, but more about transfer
and transition, he said.
Anticipating the increase, the Army and Marine Corps have been leaning
forward to ensure troops are ready for service in Afghanistan, Mullen
said.
The men and women who serve and their families have been extraordinary
in very challenging times, Mullen said, bearing the burden of two wars
and succeeding in Iraq.
“They are the best I’ve ever been associated with,” he said. “All our
forces are very capable in counterinsurgency and many units have
deployed to Afghanistan in the past.”
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=56896
bademiyansubhanallah
Ask John Burns: Global Impact of Afghan Plan
By THE NEW YORK TIMES
How will President Obama’s new plan in Afghanistan reverberate around
the world? John F. Burns, The Times’s chief foreign correspondent,
will be taking questions.
Lars Klove for The New York Times
Can more soldiers also help stabilize Pakistan? Or will talk of an
“exit strategy” discourage deeper cooperation between America and
Pakistan’s leaders? How does it affect Russia and China? Did President
Obama’s speech help convince wary Europeans that they too should
support the war with more troops — at least for now?
Q.I recently heard a former ambassador from a NATO country (I prefer
not to publicly identify this person here) state that it was the
policy of the Pakistani government to support the Taliban, that this
is not publicly known, and that while the government of Pakistan may
not officially protect Bin Laden, that he is sure a unit of the
Pakistani ISI (intelligence service) is covertly assigned to protect
him. Could you comment on this?
Dad a.k.a. Toby
Toronto
A.Toby, your NATO source was touching on an issue that has flared
again in recent days as an irritant – though that’s far too mild a
term for anything of such grave menace — in relations between Pakistan
and the Western powers, particularly the United States and Britain. In
his West Point address, President Obama made only a passing reference
to Osama bin Laden, at the point early in the speech where he referred
to the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks. He noted that “Al Qaeda’s
base of operations was in Afghanistan,” and that the Taliban had
refused to “turn over” Mr. bin Laden to the United States, leading to
the original decision to dispatch American troops to Afghanistan.
Later in the address, the president shifted the focus to Pakistan,
saying, “We cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location
is known and whose intentions are clear.” But he did not specify Mr.
bin Laden as being among those terrorists, an omission that may not
have been by chance. Perhaps the president chose not to highlight the
fugitive status, eight years on, of a man who carries a $50 million
American ransom, out of concern that he might be seen as adding a
further hard-if-not-impossible benchmark by which critics can judge,
in time, his decision to deploy those additional 30,000 American
troops. Even President George W. Bush fell largely silent on Mr. bin
Laden in his latter years in the White House — again, we might think,
because the chances of catching or killing the Qaeda leader had become
increasingly remote with the passage of time. I know for a fact that
the overall American commander of the drive to topple the Taliban in
Afghanistan in 2001, Gen. Tommy Franks, was saying by 2003 that Mr.
bin Laden was unlikely ever to be caught, because, as he put it, the
Qaeda leader was “swimming like a fish in the sea” in the sanctuary of
the tribal fastness on Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan.
In any case, Mr. bin Laden is in the news again. Last weekend,
Britain’s prime minister, Gordon Brown, enumerating what the combatant
powers in Afghanistan would expect of Pakistan, cited approvingly the
current Pakistani military offensive in the tribal territory of South
Waziristan but added, “We have to ask ourselves why, eight years after
Sept. 11, nobody has been able to spot or detain or get close to Osama
bin Laden, nobody has been able to get close to (Ayman al) Zawahri,
the No. 2 in Al Qaeda.” At 10 Downing Street on Thursday, that brought
a rejoinder from Pakistan’s visiting prime minister, Yousaf Raza
Gilani, who said Pakistan needed “credible and actionable”
intelligence to hunt down the Qaeda leader, then added, “I don’t think
Osama bin Laden is in Pakistan.”
That brought us full cycle back to the early aftermath of the
Taliban’s defeat in November 2001, and the escape into Pakistan, for
without doubt that was what it was, that Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Zawahri
made from what seemed likely at the time to be their last stand at
Tora Bora, in the mountains south of the Afghan city of Jalalabad. The
Senate Foreign Relations Committee chose this week, too, to release a
report blaming American military commanders, principally General
Franks, for failing to deploy American troops to Tora Bora in numbers
that could have blocked the Qaeda leaders’ escape. That report was
based in part on an official history of events at Tora Bora compiled
two years ago by the military’s Special Operations Command, which did
have troops at Tora Bora, some of them careering about on quadbikes
confiscating cameras and film from Western photographers assigned to
the story. British officers who were at Tora Bora told me afterward
that they had urged the Americans to join in a helicopter-borne
landing atop the Tora Bora mountains to block the only escape route,
but that the Americans vetoed the idea, saying that the 10th Mountain
Division, with the only troops available, was not equipped to cope
with the bitter temperatures and drifting snows they would encounter
on the 14,000-foot saddle leading from the Tora Bora heights into
Pakistan.
True or not, those accounts set the tone for what has, ever after,
been a highly contentious issue. Although Western intelligence
agencies have said repeatedly that voice-recognition technology has
confirmed the authenticity of many of the bin Laden audio tapes Al
Qaeda has distributed over the years, doubts that he is still alive
persist, not least because he has not appeared on newly-shot videotape
for years. The fact of Prime Minister Brown demanding publicly that
Pakistan go after Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Zawahri tells us that
Britain’s intelligence agencies, which have historic ties to
Pakistan’s, are satisfied that the Qaeda leader is still alive, and
somewhere in those hundreds of square miles of forbidding territory
along Pakistan’s western frontier. That, too, is the opinion of the
Pakistani journalist Rahimullah Yusufzai, who knows more about Al
Qaeda, its leaders and the Taliban than anybody I have ever met; a
Pashtun speaker, and a tribal chief in his own right, he has a conduit
to senior Taliban and Qaeda leaders that is unmatched, and was one of
very few reporters with access to them before the Sept. 11 attacks.
Interviewed on BBC radio on Thursday, Mr. Yusufzai noted that an array
of top Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed in Predator drone
strikes on Pakistan’s tribal areas – by some accounts, as many as
three-quarters of the top 20 on America’s most-wanted list. And, he
added, on the issue of Mr. bin Laden, “We have no sightings, we have
no evidence, but there is a very great likelihood that some of the Al
Qaeda and Taliban leaders are in Pakistan.”
I have my own convictions, based partly on my own trek up those Tora
Bora mountains back in the summer of 2002, when the Times editors,
addressing conflicting reports from American agencies as to whether
Mr. bin Laden was alive or dead, assigned me to go back to the last
place where he was known to have been before he disappeared – in a
modest cluster of mud, straw and stone buildings on the lower slopes
of Tora Bora. It was there, after he took sanctuary in Afghanistan in
the mid-1990s, that he spent much of his time, and met a number of
Western reporters. The encampment had been heavily bombed, but there
were hints in the rubble that bin Laden had been there until the area
came under siege – plastic bags of saline drip with recent use-by
dates, and other medical paraphernalia that could have been used to
treat the chronic renal problems he is said to have suffered for
years. And then there were the villagers using donkeys to drag tree
stumps down the mountainside from areas where B-52 bombing had
performed what amounted to clear-cutting. When I asked them – not one
or two, but several – if they had seen Mr. bin Laden at the time of
the bombing, they pointed up the mountain and told me that “the
sheik,” as they called him — and they described a tall, emaciated
foreigner with a bushy beard — had gone that way, on horseback. “He
went to Pakistan”, they said.
All of which leaves the question of Pakistan’s complicity, or at least
the connivance of elements in its military intelligence agency, Inter-
Services Intelligence. What is beyond question is that the ISI has
elaborate links to Afghan extremists going back to the mujahideen
struggle to drive Soviet troops from Afghanistan in the 1980’s, when
the ISI acted as the conduit for much of the $10-billion in American,
Saudi Arabian and British weapons and finance that went to the
resistance groups. Those links persisted into the 1990’s, and then
into this decade, encouraged by Pakistan civilian and military
governments that have always seen a crucial strategic interest in
maintaining influence in Afghanistan, partly for “strategic depth” in
Pakistan’s confrontation with India, partly to guard against Pashtun
nationalists on both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border reviving
the historic goal of a “Pashtunistan” nation that would involve the
dismemberment of Pakistan. If anybody outside the ranks of the Qaeda
and Taliban leadership knows where bin Laden is, it is as likely as
not to be an agent of the ISI.
Q.The president claimed that a big difference between Vietnam and
Afghanistan is that in the case of Vietnam the insurgency had popular
support but that this is not true in Afghanistan. Is this true? Or is
the situation regarding “loyalties” more fluid and complex than his
remarks suggest?
Rob Hull, West Virginia
A.Rob,
This is not a topic on which you’ll find much agreement among
reporters who have covered this war. The more common view, which I see
repeated in stories about the war all the time, is that the Taliban do
enjoy considerable support, at least in many of the hinterland areas,
perhaps 80 percent of the country, where they go largely unchallenged
by coalition forces, or at least only sporadically challenged.
Surveys done for the coalition suggest a radically different picture,
with support for the Taliban running as low as 7 percent. The hard
fact is that nobody can really know, because opinion in war zones
everywhere is intimidation-led, and all the more so when the men with
the guns are as ruthless as the Taliban have always been with those
who resist them or who give any sign that their sympathies run to the
Taliban’s enemies. You only have to ask yourself what opinion you
would give if you were a villager approached by a reporter somewhere
in the distant reaches of Helmand or Oruzgan or Kunar or Khost, areas
where the Taliban have posed the most serious threat to coalition
forces. Many, of course, do say in the presence of coalition troops
that they despise the Taliban, for their brutality and repression, but
just as many others stay silent, as well they might.
My own sense, developed over 40 years reporting from places of
authoritarianism and repression, is that common sense is the best
guide to what people are really thinking. Before I went on my first
foreign assignment to Mao Zedong’s China in the early 1970s, at the
time of the Cultural Revolution, there was no lack of “China experts”
in Britain and the United States who told me that the Cultural
Revolution then convulsing the country was a “great and noble human
experiment,” as one of them put it to me, and that it expressed the
deepest wishes of China’s people. That turned out to be some of the
worst advice I was ever given, though there were plenty of Chinese, if
I chose to believe them, who told me as much when I approached them
with a notebook and a pencil. Over time, I came to discount any
political opinion that was expressed in the presence of the ever-
lurking intimidators from the Chinese state security apparatus, and to
trust only those views that were expressed in moments when there was
nobody else to overhear.
It was a lesson I have never forgotten; applied in Afghanistan, it
suggests to me that a great majority of Afghans have no desire to see
a return of the relentless miseries the Taliban imposed during the
years between their march into Kabul in 1996 and their fall from power
in 2001. And why would they? Who but extremists could wish to see the
routine suppression of women and girls, the ready resort to violent
punishments, the banning of everyday pleasures, from television to
movies to kite-flying?
This is not to say that Afghans in their millions embrace the
coalition forces. The strong streak of nationalism among Afghans runs
heavily against occupation by foreign powers, and many Afghans will
tell you that they are sorely disappointed at what they regard as the
breach of the promises they understood to have been made by the
Western nations that combined to topple the Taliban, principally the
United States. On my last visit to Kabul, I visited a village on the
northwestern outskirts of the city, hard up against a ridge of
mountains that marks the southern extremity of the Hindu Kush; I had
been there in the autumn of 1997, when the village was overrun by the
Taliban forces that had just seized Kabul. Accused by the Taliban of
providing sanctuary to the forces of Ahmed Shah Massoud, the “Lion of
Panjshir,” later to be assassinated by Al Qaeda on Sept. 9, 2001, the
village was razed to the ground.
Nearly a dozen years later, I returned to find the homes rebuilt, the
lives of the villagers restored, the children flying kites and playing
happily in the rocky pathways, the Taliban receding as a bitter memory
of lives and homes destroyed. Overhead, American military transport
planes traced a path across the sky on their descent into the Bagram
Air Base that is a hub of American military activity about 25 miles
north of the capital. Asked about the Americans, the villagers pointed
to the sky and said: “We don’t know them. We thought they would come
and build us a school or a clinic, but they never came.” The words
were spoken without reproval, more as an expression of sorrow than
dislike. I felt then, as I do now, that an effective American aid
program – the “civilian surge” of which Mr. Obama spoke last night –
could, if combined with the enhanced security provided by more
American troops, help turn the tide of a war that in the past two or
three years has seemed ever more likely to be lost.
Q.Mr. Burns, it appears President Obama has announced a second “surge”
of troops for Afghanistan under his watch. But we cannot know now if
they will succeed. There is still bitter disagreement on whether
President Bush’s “surge” succeeded or not in Iraq. Was the surge of
troops in Iraq a success, in your opinion?
Ian
Ontario, Canada
A.Ian,
I just reread the president’s speech, looking for that buzzword
“surge,” sure I’d heard it as I listened last night. And there it was,
deep in the text, where Mr. Obama talked about the three core elements
of his new American strategy: “a military effort” to create the
conditions for handing over the war to Afghan forces; “a civilian
surge that reinforces positive action” and “an effective partnership
with Pakistan.” It’s perhaps no surprise that Mr. Obama avoided the
“surge” word when referring to the 30,000 additional troops he’s
dispatching, since he was one of many on Capitol Hill who opposed
former President Bush’s military surge in Iraq, ordered in January
2007. But perhaps using the word at all was a nod by Mr. Obama’s
speechwriters to what military historians may well say was one of the
things that Mr. Bush, amid all the other miscalculations, got right
about the Iraq conflict.
In any case, a surge is what unarguably Mr. Obama has ordered, if the
term is understood as Mr. Bush used it, a temporary increase in
military deployments for a specific, time-limited goal. The way the
word has seeped into the parlance of war was further demonstrated in
the last few days when Britain’s prime minister, Gordon Brown,
ordering 500 additional British troops to Iraq to bring Britain’s
deployment up to 10,000, and saying he aimed to start drawing down the
British deployments as early as mid-2010, referred to it as “a
military surge.”
Mr. Bush may smile when he reflects on all of this down amid the
sagebrush of Crawford, Tex., remembering how fiercely war critics
opposed his decision to send five additional combat brigades to Iraq
after its descent into civil war in 2006, when the overwhelming
consensus of American opinion, political and popular, ran toward a
drawdown of American troops, not a buildup. I remember the moment
keenly, because I visited Mr. Bush in the Oval Office for a discussion
on the war shortly after he made that decision, at a time when I was
The Times’s bureau chief in Iraq. I found him preternaturally calm,
sure he had found in Gen. David H. Petraeus the right man to command
American forces in Iraq and make the surge work. The general laughed,
later, when I told him in Baghdad that Mr. Bush had described him as a
man for “the long ball,” not a man for grinding out the hard yards one
or two at a time; he told me that he wasn’t so sure there were any
long balls to throw.
A year or 18 months later, with levels of violence across Iraq down by
70 percent and more, it was a commonplace among Mr. Bush’s critics to
say that the surge, alone, was only part of the sweeping security
improvements in Iraq. They said that General Petraeus, in effect,
lucked into a series of events long in the making – primarily, the
decision of powerful Sunni sheiks to join the Awakening, which saw
thousands of former insurgents change sides in the war – that were at
least as important as the 30,000 or so additional American troops and
the neighborhood security they brought areas of Baghdad, Ramadi and
other cities that previously had been ravaged by insurgent violence.
But that could pretty well always be argued against any general
successful in war. Not for nothing did Napoleon say, by popular
legend, that he prized luck more than any other quality in his
generals.
As for whether the surge in Iraq will stand in history’s reckoning as
a decisive turning point in that war, we can take our cue from General
Petraeus and the current commander in Iraq, Gen. Ray Odierno, who have
always said that the surge’s gains were “fragile and reversible”; only
time, especially in events in Iraq over the next year, will tell
whether the security gains were durable and enough to pave the way for
the American military drawdown Mr. Obama has ordered next spring and
summer. But what seems beyond doubt is that the surge in Iraq, for all
the differences in the two wars, has projected itself into the
thinking of the White House and the Pentagon with Mr. Obama’s decision
to try a similar, limited military effort in Afghanistan. Just how
much of a role in the decision was played by General Petraeus, a West
Point graduate of the Class of ’74 who sat in his dark blue dress
uniform at the front of the academy’s auditorium last night, seated
there by dint of his current role at Central Command overseeing both
the wars, we may only know when the histories of the Obama
administration are written. But for everybody’s sake, let us hope that
the surge in Afghanistan achieves at least some of the success of its
conceptual precursor in Iraq.
Q.Hi John. What are your thoughts on how the President’s plan will be
received by the Karzai government? How about by the Afghani people?
Also, is it wise military strategy to signal an end date so openly? As
Mary Matalin just said on CNN, the extremists have waited 80 years to
export terror, what’s another 18 months? Thanks.
JC
Boston, Mass.
A.JC,
As you will have seen, the early response from President Karzai’s
government has been cautiously optimistic, as diplomats and press
secretaries like to say, with his interior minister, Hanif Atmar,
saying that Mr. Obama’s decision “will give us momentum” and the
Afghan ambassador to the United States calling it “along the line of
what the Afghan people are demanding.” Realistically, though, the
president’s decision to begin drawing down United States troops within
18 months seems likely to have come as something of a shock to Mr.
Karzai and his entourage, as it will have to many Afghans. Anybody who
has ever taken flying lessons will tell you that it is one thing to
complain about the length of time your instructor is taking to approve
you going solo, and another to taxi out alone for take-off. For eight
years, the government in Kabul has sheltered behind the shield
provided by American and allied troops, while (in Mr. Karzai’s case)
complaining, with increasing acerbity in the past year or so, about
American political interference and military blunders, mainly errant
bombings, that have cost Afghan civilian lives. But to face the
prospect of that shield beginning to be lowered in mid-2011, and of
having to rely increasingly on Afghanistan’s own hitherto shaky and
often untrustworthy forces, will concentrate minds behind the
crenellated walls of the Arg Palace, where Mr. Karzai makes his seat
of government. It is a prospect that, ultimately, will become
intensely personal for Mr. Karzai, whose own security was entrusted to
American contractors after a failed assassination attempt in Kandahar
in 2002.
As for Mr. Obama’s decision to “signal an end date so openly,” as you
say, the arguments have already begun. Partly, this is a matter of
logistics – of how long, in reality, it will take to progress the
Afghan army and police to the point where they can begin to accept
responsibility for the country’s security. It has taken eight years so
far to create an Afghan army of 90,000 troops, not one battalion of
which is currently capable of sustained combat operations on its own;
by the administration’s own schedule, it will be the end of August
2010 before that can be pushed up to 134,000, about a third of whom
will be greenhorn troops with no previous combat experience. It seems
highly unlikely, now, that the burden of war can be shifted more than
marginally to these troops within 18 months, regardless of the
increased resources that are being invested in the training program.
Mr. Obama, of course, was careful to limit his deadline to a start
point for beginning an American drawdown and did not lay down a time
line for bringing the troops home — a caution that will give him and
his commanders wide leeway as the initial drawdown date approaches.
But beyond the uncertain arithmetic of Afghan troop levels and combat
effectiveness –- a highly uncertain calculus hitherto, given annual
desertion levels as high as 30 percent in Afghan battalions, a
chronically weak noncommissioned officer corps and a history of
unreliable commanders – there is the obvious, and ominous, fact that
the Taliban, too, will now know that their road to Kabul will become
progressively easier after mid-2011, and that they will have the
option of waiting the Americans out.
One worried Afghan voice on the BBC this morning was that of Ali Ahmad
Jalali, an Afghan-American who served as interior minister in Mr.
Karzai’s government for 20 months in 2003-2005, and lately a visiting
professor at National Defense University in Washington, D.C. Mr.
Jalali, a colonel in the Afghan army 30 years ago, and later a member
of the armed resistance against the Soviet invasion, said that it was
a time-honored practice among Afghan fighters to wait out invading
armies.
“All Afghan rebellions have had the same strategy, that is to wait out
the other side”, he said.
A similar point was made earlier this week in the House of Commons in
London by David Cameron, the Conservative opposition leader, who is
favored to take over as prime minister after an election now expected
to be held in May. Admonishing Prime Minister Gordon Brown for having
said he hoped to be able to set a schedule by mid-2010 for withdrawing
the first of Britain’s 10,000 troops from Afghanistan, Mr. Cameron
said that the premature announcement of even tentative withdrawal
dates made for bad policy. “We must never do or say anything that
gives the impression to the Taliban that we will not see this
through,” he said.
Q.What do you think of the president’s speech and do you think that
this plan has a chance of working?
Miker
N.M.
A.Miker,
Like many people across the globe, I stayed up late into the night, at
my home in England, to listen to the president speaking at West Point,
recognizing that it was a pivotal moment for his presidency, for
America, for the world – and, of course, for Afghanistan. It was an
impressive speech, for the clarity and sense of authority with which
Mr. Obama set out the extraordinarily difficult mix of issues
confronting the United States and its allies in the war. Although some
critics have taken to saying that the president is a man more
comfortable with words than with decisions, it is surely an asset to
be such a powerful and assured speaker when addressing an audience, at
home and abroad, that is so conflicted about the war.
But I was left, as were many others, I believe, after listening to
reactions coming in from around the world this morning, with an uneasy
feeling that Mr. Obama may have chosen an inherently unworkable
compromise between the poles of opinion on the war: that it is
currently being lost for a lack of enough troops and an effective
military strategy, as Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal and other American
commanders believe; and that, as many critics insist, it is ultimately
unwinnable regardless of any sustainable troop increase, making an
early withdrawal the only realistic choice. By deploying an additional
30,000 troops, the president has gone a long way toward meeting the
most troop-intensive option, 40,000 troops, that General McChrystal
was reported to have requested in his report to the president this
summer. But by saying he intends to begin drawing down the American
force from its projected peak of about 100,000 by mid-2011 – barely 12
months after the last of the new troops will have begun operations,
and 2½ years before the end of 2013, a date that General McChrystal
and other allied commanders had cited previously as a realistic
deadline for transferring overall combat responsibilities to the
Afghans — Mr. Obama has set a deadline that could prove bluntly
incompatible with the objective of halting and reversing the gains
made in recent years by the Taliban. As a means of reconciling the
conflicting points of view among his own most senior advisers –
indeed, as a means of satisfying the poles of American and world
opinion, and threading a way between a range of inhibiting options —
the compromise has unarguable appeal. But as a strategy for prevailing
in the war, it could, I fear, prove fatally unrealistic.
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/ask-john-burns-global-impact-of-afghan-plan/
bademiyansubhanallah
This I Believe
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: December 1, 2009
Let me start with the bottom line and then tell you how I got there: I
can’t agree with President Obama’s decision to escalate in
Afghanistan. I’d prefer a minimalist approach, working with tribal
leaders the way we did to overthrow the Taliban regime in the first
place. Given our need for nation-building at home right now, I am
ready to live with a little less security and a little-less-perfect
Afghanistan.
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Thomas L. Friedman
I recognize that there are legitimate arguments on the other side. At
a lunch on Tuesday for opinion writers, the president lucidly argued
that opting for a surge now to help Afghans rebuild their army and
state into something decent — to win the allegiance of the Afghan
people — offered the only hope of creating an “inflection point,” a
game changer, to bring long-term stability to that region. May it be
so. What makes me wary about this plan is how many moving parts there
are — Afghans, Pakistanis and NATO allies all have to behave forever
differently for this to work.
But here is the broader context in which I assess all this: My own
foreign policy thinking since 9/11 has been based on four pillars:
1. The Warren Buffett principle: Everything I’ve ever gotten in life
is largely due to the fact that I was born in this country, America,
at this time with these opportunities for its citizens. It is the
primary obligation of our generation to turn over a similar America to
our kids.
2. Many big bad things happen in the world without America, but not a
lot of big good things. If we become weak and enfeebled by economic
decline and debt, as we slowly are, America may not be able to play
its historic stabilizing role in the world. If you didn’t like a world
of too-strong-America, you will really not like a world of too-weak-
America — where China, Russia and Iran set more of the rules.
3. The context within which people live their lives shapes everything
— from their political outlook to their religious one. The reason
there are so many frustrated and angry people in the Arab-Muslim
world, lashing out first at their own governments and secondarily at
us — and volunteering for “martyrdom” — is because of the context
within which they live their lives. That was best summarized by the
U.N.’s Arab Human Development reports as a context dominated by three
deficits: a deficit of freedom, a deficit of education and a deficit
of women’s empowerment. The reason India, with the world’s second-
largest population of Muslims, has a thriving Muslim minority (albeit
with grievances but with no prisoners in Guantánamo Bay) is because of
the context of pluralism and democracy it has built at home.
4. One of the main reasons the Arab-Muslim world has been so resistant
to internally driven political reform is because vast oil reserves
allow its regimes to become permanently ensconced in power, by just
capturing the oil tap, and then using the money to fund vast security
and intelligence networks that quash any popular movement. Look at
Iran.
Hence, post-9/11 I advocated that our politicians find sufficient
courage to hike gasoline taxes and seriously commit ourselves to
developing alternatives to oil. Economists agree that this would
ultimately bring down the global price, and slowly deprive these
regimes of the sole funding source that allows them to maintain their
authoritarian societies. People do not change when we tell them they
should; they change when their context tells them they must.
To me, the most important reason for the Iraq war was never W.M.D. It
was to see if we could partner with Iraqis to help them build
something that does not exist in the modern Arab world: a state, a
context, where the constituent communities — Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds
— write their own social contract for how to live together without an
iron fist from above. Iraq has proved staggeringly expensive and
hugely painful. The mistakes we made should humble anyone about nation-
building in Afghanistan. It does me.
Still, the Iraq war may give birth to something important — if Iraqis
can find that self-sustaining formula to live together. Alas, that is
still in doubt. If they can, the model would have a huge impact on the
Arab world. Baghdad is a great Arab capital. If Iraqis fail, it’s
religious strife, economic decline and authoritarianism as far as the
eye can see — the witch’s brew that spawns terrorists.
Iraq was about “the war on terrorism.” The Afghanistan invasion, for
me, was about the “war on terrorists.” To me, it was about getting bin
Laden and depriving Al Qaeda of a sanctuary — period. I never thought
we could make Afghanistan into Norway — and even if we did, it would
not resonate beyond its borders the way Iraq might.
To now make Afghanistan part of the “war on terrorism” — i.e., another
nation-building project — is not crazy. It is just too expensive, when
balanced against our needs for nation-building in America, so that we
will have the strength to play our broader global role. Hence, my
desire to keep our presence in Afghanistan limited. That is what I
believe. That is why I believe it.
188 of 305 Readers' Comments
3.Dim Texas December 2nd, 2009 7:28 am
"This I Believe" OR "Mr. Obama did not call for sacrifices"?
You want to continue this war, Mr. President? Fine. I just have a few
small suggestions to make. First, please, ask your Wall St. buddies to
chip in to pay for it. How about a 95% tax on all bonuses over, let's
say, 400k - your salary, Mr. President. Second, ask all congressmen to
take a 25% cut in their salary for the duration on this war, did you
say until 2013? Third, ask all of us who still have jobs to pay for it
too. To be fair, how about extra 5% war tax on families making over
50k per family member? I am in this last category and I am willing to
pay extra 10%, but I can not speak for everybody so maybe 5% is fair
enough. Now, I hope I will not hear too many complaints from the
Republicans since they should put their money where their mouth is.
And Mr. President, if you really believe in this war, please, do not
forget to ask for sacrifices. Or next thing you know, you will be
urging us all to just go shopping.
Recommended by 942 Readers
15.Luke Yonkers, NY December 2nd, 2009 7:28 am
When will you ever admit that you were tragically wrong, and not just
"humbled"? You were an early and vocal proponent of the fiasco in
Iraq, plus, as you openly admit in this piece, the "Afghanistan-on-the-
cheap" strategy that has put us in our current position there. That's
two wrong for two. Why should we listen to you now? You obviously
weren't listening to the same speech the rest of the country heard
tonight. Which exact words of the president's allow you to construe
that he's proposing a nation-building exercise to turn Afghanistan
into Norway? Stop projecting your mistakes onto the president. You and
the other Bush enablers of 2002-2003 are partly responsible for what
he has to do now, as bitter as it is to him and to all of us. Show
your "humility" by getting behind him.
Recommended by 645 Readers
14.Third Party 2012 Atlanta, Georgia December 2nd, 2009 7:28 am
Thanks for the clarification. Unfortunately you're wrong.
Afghanistan is Vietnam with sand instead of forests. It is
unbelievably stupid to send troops and money there under any
circumstances. We have accomplished absolutely nothing and will
continue to do so until the day we leave. Every soldier who dies there
will die in vain, and when we leave everything will revert to what it
was - clan warfare in an ungovernable wasteland.
Recommended by 586 Readers
6.Earle Middletown De December 2nd, 2009 7:28 am
I got news for you Tom. We already are weak and enfeebled.
Recommended by 493 Readers
11.Mike Dripping Springs, TX December 2nd, 2009 7:28 am
I am one of many citizens who feel absolutely powerless to change the
way our country runs its affairs. I really believe that our elected
officials need to get out of DC more to see what the heck is taking
place in THIS country. I hate to think what it's going to take to fund
the new surge of troops in Afghanistan; and it pains me to think how
much good that money would do in nation-building in the USA. And,
ultimately, I have to wonder what happened to all the folks in
government, and elsewhere, that lived through Vietnam, the Carter
years, the S&L calamity of the 1980s, the dot-com bust of 2000? Why
have we forgotten to learn from our history? Sadly, methinks we're
walking the same darned treadmill, this time in Afghanistan. ...
Recommended by 408 Readers
22.ueberdude Madison, WI December 2nd, 2009 7:28 am
All the arguments against the "Afghan Surge" made in this article
could have been used to argue against the invading of Iraq.
Unfortunately, Thomas Friedman, under the spell of wishful thinking
and naive idealism, actively took part in cheer leading the way into
Iraq.
The result for me, an avid reader for years, was a genuine loss of
Friedman's credibility. No amount of focusing on energy policy or the
present burden to our economy by our current follies, as has done in
more recent columns, will change that.
Recommended by 398 Readers
7.steve pesce california December 2nd, 2009 7:28 am
I can't agree either. And I appreciate your tone and points. I think
the main thing here is that President Obama looked like a trapped
animal trying to squeeze through any crack to escape. Basically, it's
nonsensical to think that 30,000 troops going to a country of Muslims
for 18 months is going to have some kind of magic bullet effect that
will allow us to walk away and leave them in peace and tranquility
without any more extremist's working out terrorist plots. Yet, that's
what we were expected to swallow tonight. It was not exactly vintage
Obama. It was kind of sad to watch. And it showed that WE DON'T
believe we have to win this war. We don't believe we have to defeat
the Taliban nor Al Qaeda. We don't believe we have to prevent bases in
Afghanistan. We don't believe we have to protect women from Sharia
law. That's all smoke. What we do believe is that we have egg on our
face, and our president is wearing it, because he campaigned on
escalating this war. He actually escalated this war. Now he wants to
cut and run but can't. Pathetic that one single American soldier
should die for our vanity. Bring them home now. STOP THIS MADNESS!
Recommended by 341 Readers
25.HD USA December 2nd, 2009 8:01 am
Of course Iraq will revert to their old ways just as soon as we are
gone. Those guys haven't a clue about democracy. All the more reason
to just get out now. And, as you point out, Afghanistan doesn't really
matter all that much to the Muslim world or to our safety.
We really need to come home, lick our wounds and rebuild from the
stupid, horrible, evil things we have done over the last decade. Let's
just get back to the America we were before Bush. And, oh yes, can I
please have my civil rights back?
Recommended by 299 Readers
19.Roger Texas December 2nd, 2009 7:28 am
Just what we told you about Iraq, Tom: it was just too expensive. Too
bad you didn't write this column a week ago when it might have done
some good. Or in early 2003. First Viet Nam, then Iraq and now
Afghanistan. None of them were worth the pricetag - not to mention the
bodies.
Recommended by 295 Readers
23.soso Canada December 2nd, 2009 8:01 am
The rich want the war, the rich must pay for it and also the economy
at home destroyed by their insatiable exploitation of the middle and
poor.
Recommended by 280 Readers
5.Kate Madison Depoe Bay, Oregon December 2nd, 20097:28 am...
"To me, the most important reason for the Iraq war was never W.M.D. It
was to see if we could partner with Iraqis to help them build
something that does not exist in the modern Arab world: a state, a
context, where the constituent communities — Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds
— write their own social contract for how to live together without an
iron fist from above. Iraq has proved staggeringly expensive and
hugely painful. The mistakes we made should humble anyone about nation-
building in Afghanistan. IT DOES ME!"
OKAY, Tom, I admit it--that last sentence in your quote was MY caps!
You had kind of hidden it, perhaps hoping we would not see it! But,
you must understand: I CANNOT BELIEVE that you have finally admitted,
sort of, that you are sorry for your role in promoting that futile war
in Iraq! Congratulations, I think! On second thought, you take it all
back in the next paragraph! So......all I have to go on in this entire
op-ed is ONE LITTLE SENTENCE: "It does me!"
However.....if this minimal guilt keeps you from supporting an
expensive and unrealistic escalation (and bloodier war) in
Afghanistan--than so be it!!! Sometimes, we just have to take what we
can get!
Recommended by 279 Readers
24.Broke in America California December 2nd, 2009 8:01 am
Although we're in agreement that Obama's new war is unnecessary and
that we have a more urgent nation building at home, Fridman never
loses his deceptive nature:
"To me, the most important reason for the Iraq war was never W.M.D. It
was to see if we could partner with Iraqis to help them build
something that does not exist in the modern Arab world"
That's why you said "Suck on this" to Arabs and Muslims? Did you
believe that invading Iraq at the hands of Cheney-Bush was for
democracy and partnership? Have you not seen all the no-bid contracts
for Haliburton? Have you not seen how oil Iraq is now contracted by US
companies?
This was neither about WMD's nor about partnership with the Arab
world. So you, Friedman cannot fool anyone.
As for your gas tax hike, and I know you've been advocating it for a
long time under the disguise of clean air, this only hurts the middle
class further. Is not not enough there are 17% unemployed and millions
in foreclosure? Now you think you can end the dependence on foreign
oil by taxing consumers who have been driven to despair?
Intellectual dishonesty. Nothing more, Friedman.
Recommended by 229 Readers
1.j. singernh December 2nd, 2009 7:28 am
Obama is a war-monger. Period. He couldn't wait to prove that he is as
tough a man as Bush. But, he isn't sending his family members to
fight, nor is he sending the family members of his friends over at
Goldman Sachs. He is sending my family members and yours.
Recommended by 224 Readers
53.DB Yonker, NY December 2nd, 200910:15 am
Mr. Friedman,
You write "To me, the most important reason for the Iraq war was never
W.M.D. It was to see if we could partner with Iraqis to help them
build something that does not exist in the modern Arab world...".
Sir, that you actually put such a statement to paper, to me, voids any
claim(s) you might ever have to calling yourself (should you ever do
so) a humanist, liberal, rational, or (within a certain context),
sane. You are speaking of war; the most unspeakably severe of all
human actions, which results in death, maiming, displacement,
suffering on untold levels, as though it were a new recipe for fondue.
" Let's try this; maybe we can foster or support a true democracy in
the middle east... ok, there might be tens of thousands of persons
dead, hundreds of thousands wounded or mutilated, the families of
those unfortunate souls shredded spiritually, physically and subjected
to unimaginable (at least, blessedly, by me... perhaps you are
uncommonly -for a person of privilege- familiar with these terrors)
privations... but hey, it would be such a good thing, it's worth a
shot." This is the unavoidable essence of your thesis.
It's inarguable the Saddam Hussein was a monster, and he had plenty of
company worldwide; there were, and are no shortage of despots. Indeed,
some might rightfully argue that our own history from 2000-2008 had
all the tragic elements that speckle dictatorships worldwide. But to
simply cherry pick a nation, Iraq, and decide to go to war on a quest
to benevolently transform a benighted nation is risible on its face,
and arrogant beyond compare in its practice (but not intention). Would
you have so cavalierly offered up the lives (or limbs) of one or more
persons that you love dearly in the service of this geo-political
engineering after suffering no threat to your own well-being?
Your statement could have easily come from the lips of any number of
sanctimonious neocons who eagerly offered up all the U.S. could
deliver-- the bodies of soldiers in our all "volunteer" army arriving
whole, and piecemeal, back home in the dead of night with a legal
preclusion to even photographing the caskets that might illustrate
their ultimate sacrifice(s)-- without a whit of personal risk either
in their present lives, or personal history.
You speak of the Iraq war's raison d'etre with unutterable casualness.
Of course, this is not to mention the endless lies and decisions based
on self interest that formed this catastrophe.
And even now, after all we and the world have seen, to read such a
statement; I don't believe the NYTimes' moderators would allow the
publication of the words that would accurately convey my revulsion.
Recommended by 190 Readers
26.Bob Sallamack New Jersey December 2nd, 2009 8:01 am
To me, the most important reason for the Iraq war was never W.M.D. It
was to see if we could partner with Iraqis to help them build
something that does not exist in the modern Arab world
..................................................
How does one deal with a mind that sees invasion of a nation as
partnership?
And we claim that the Arab world do not understand our intentions when
they appear to be formed in a psychiatric hospital.
A month ago we had David Brooks questioning whether the President had
the male tenacity to expand Afghanistan into a full blown war. Now we
have Tom Friedman that the full blown war in Afghanistan is too
expensive and not worth the partnering.
At what point did the New York Times start believing in Abbott and
Costello for articulating foreign affairs?
Recommended by 180 Readers
43.Linda M Maryville, TN December 2nd, 2009 10:10 am
In following your line of reasoning, I realized it probably would be
okay with you if Switzerland, France, Germany, New Zealand or any one
of a number of other countries just decided to come on over and occupy
The United States of America at gun point in order to set us straight
on our failure to provide health care for all our citizens because to
them we seem like barbarians, right?
Recommended by 177 Readers
16.bruce dundas, ont. December 2nd, 2009 7:28 am
READING TOM friedman's columns for the past several years makes me
believe he's become more american centric by the minute. historic
stablilizing force?? think there are one helluva lot of countries and
cultures which would froth at the mouth after reading that statement.
goes along with his famous column where he said if america opened its
borders every other country in the world would be empty. and mr
friedman's last column was incredibly woolly headed......used to enjoy
and respect his stuff. bought a few of his books. he looks more and
more like the provincial american the rest of the planet shakes its
head at....
Recommended by 168 Readers
2.Sam Johnson PA December 2nd, 2009 7:28 am
I'm not sure who is dumber; Obama for giving our enemy the method and
date of our exit strategy, or me, for taking a chance and voting for
the inexperienced, bumbling Obama to help give him the opportunity to
wage war in such a dumb way.
Recommended by 154 Readers
4.Phil in the mountains of Kyushu Japan December 2nd, 2009 7:28 am
OK -- but still don't buy your still-making excuses for Iraq.
I mean, expensive? I can respect you for factoring in expense for your
own pulling back from more madness in Afghanistant -- salutes for
that. But, expense or no, Iraq needn't ever have been prime target for
your neo-con Let's Bake a Cake fantasies. The 9-11 terrorists came
from Saudi Arabia and Egypt -- from U.S. allies with massively anti-
democratic biases, massively part of the U.S. military-industrial
complex. How about having looked at them for the cake baking you'd
imagined so delicious in Iraq?
Still, got to give you credit for some sobriety on Afghanistan -- so,
look, here, be happy -- a poem!:
Prez O-Bush III: an Ode
As everybody knows
we have from dear Prez O
the same old status quo
except now more – mo’, mo’
bankers rake in mo’ dough,
and wars where youth can go.
There are no jobs at home,
and this doggerel poem
at best’s the only bone
we mere rubes may chew on
while the wars only grow
for Corporate Land now sold
on its dear shill, Prez O.
So let’s smile and swallow
at yet more betrayal.
Recommended by 136 Readers
28.Mr Hop Lowell December 2nd, 2009 8:01 am
I couldn't agree more - almost ten years of staging 2 major conflicts
abroad has no doubt cost much more than the original planners probably
had in mind.
No doubt, it takes more than a military to build a peaceful, stable,
productive nation. Lesson learned?
And to think, healthcare, education funding, research funding, the
building and maintaining of a modern infrastructure, all peanuts
compared to the war machine we fund as a nation. Too bad the
budgeters, corporate leaders, and a great portion of the voting public
seem to indicate otherwise.
We can have a better world. But we are far, far overdue to take a look
at our resources, how we use them, and what we value. Not just
economically, but as a nation ourselves.
These wars have outlasted and likely outspent both world wars
combined. How could that have ever made sense?
Recommended by 80 Readers
47.MikeC Maine December 2nd, 2009 10:12 am
The Iraq and Afghanistan wars are a sham, sponsored by greed and
avarice. The so-called, “nation building,” is more realistically
“nation destroying.” The only reason America is there is for profit,
sponsored by the “war machine,” and the oil industries undying
interest in their oil reserves. The supposition that America is there
to stop terrorists, and create democracy is absurd; we don’t even have
democracy in America, and maybe if we stopped bombing their country
into oblivion, there’d be fewer terrorists.
It’s really horrid to see that when it comes to healthcare, the Senate
& Congress, can’t find any money, but when it comes to war, there are
billions available.
Between the crooks and liars, on Wall St, and the horror manifest in
war games, coupled with the neglect of nation-building at home, how
can America maintain any remote semblance of integrity?
Can you imagine what a different world it would be, if people helped
people, instead of a place filled with unending deceit, energized by
unbridled greed?
Maybe America should fix America, that would at least, be something
real.
Recommended by 78 Readers
27.moriah brownlandover, md December 2nd, 2009 8:01 am
Aren't you the World is Flat guy? You are afraid of the complexity of
the situation?
We have been in Afghanistan for 8 years looking for terrorists using
weapons of much destruction. We can't just leave and apologize for all
the loss. We owe Afghanistan something. President Obama is offering to
stay long enough to leave them with the tools to rebuild.
We are global leaders. We have to demonstrate it can be done. Yes,
this country is a great one, but its Founders compromised for an
injustice (chattel slavery) that took 150 years to overcome. We
understand our history and know we have to deal with painful
realities. Leadership requires action that is consistent with beliefs
and values.
Tonight was sobering. President Obama put a face on the military and
what is at stake. He is pushing Afghanistan, Pakistan, and NATO to
stand up and to change and we don't believe that can or will.
Change is not easy and the world is still flat.
Recommended by 74 Readers
50.Mark Los Angeles December 2nd, 2009 10:12 am
So good of you to admit being humbled by your open support for
invading Iraq. It was that tragic mistake that brings us to the
situation we're in today in Afghanistan. Maybe thinkers like yourself
might give this president a chance to fix that mistake before opining
about it. Not really trusting your track record on this.
Recommended by 63 Readers
29.Sumanta India December 2nd, 2009 8:01 am
I simply don't understand why many in the US are against a decisive
commitment to Afghanistan now. What baffles me more is that they
include some very intelligent, reasonable and thoughtful people.
Consider the facts:
1) The US prevented a murderous megalomaniac from invading another
muslim country (Kuwait) in the first gulf war. It also stationed some
troops (with the acquiescence of the regional leaders) so that this
would not happen again.
2) The US supported Israel to build a homeland for its people
throughout its struggle in a very hostile neighborhood.
3) After the fall of the Berlin wall, USA became the dominant military
and economic power in the world.
4) Americans gradually became synonymous with a rich, free-wheeling,
and culturally liberal (anti-islamic?) lifestyle.
Which one of the above you would rather not have done?
For some or all of these reasons, some very hostile, delusional,
religious extremists, from under the protection of the Taliban in
Afghanistan, killed 3000 unsuspecting Americans (not soldiers), among
them children in day-care centers. The US demanded that Al Qaeda
leadership be handed over, which the Taliban summarily rejected.
Which country in the world wouldn't have sought retribution (if it
could)? It was never about turning Afghanistan into Norway!
Now when millions of Afghan children, boys and girls, are going to
school everyday, slowly but surely the nation is trying to transform
itself from a obscurantist jihadi hotbed to something similar to
present-day Iraq, you are talking about immediate withdrawal!
Consider what will happen next.
The Taliban currently in the sanctuaries in Pakistan will overrun the
country in a matter of months (no, drone strikes alone are not enough,
as is clear from Pakistan). Even if Karzai can keep Kabul (highly
unlikely), there will be hundreds of pockets throughout the country
where islamic extremists will plot the next big attack. There will be
terrorist attacks in New York, London, Bali, Madrid, Mumbai, and yes,
in Pakistan. Eventually, some form of international force will have to
invade Afghanistan again.
Do you really want to see the same bad movie over again in the future?
The NATO forces on the ground should withdraw only after they help
build a strong Afghan ground force. From then on, they can be
available only for air-support as necessary. That will be victory. And
it's a very well-defined point to consider leaving.
Recommended by 62 Readers
8.justice Atlanta December 2nd, 2009 7:28 am
Now the warmongers get their war escalation; nation building is
expensive but nation destroying, Afghan and USA, is cost free, and
deficit neutral.
Recommend Recommended by 59 Readers
10.R. LawTexasDecember 2nd, 20097:28 amWere this still Dec. 2001, I
would agree Tom, but we have had 4 election cycles since then, which
progressively marked polarization in the country through cynical
manipulations and partisanship meaning it will be at least a
generation until it would be possible to hand off such a country.
Due to the geo-politics of the last 8 years and complete bungling of
global leadership, the options are very limited in the neighborhood,
and we must remain mindful of what gave rise to the Taliban and bin
Laden in the first place - the frist rule in life is clean up after
yourself, and the 2nd rule is "don't leave a vacuum".
It is now our task to provide perspective: WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietman,
were all fought or started under Democrats, FDR instituted the New
Deal through skillful use of Keynesianism (though not flawless), the
New Deal proves government works, etc. etc.
These are facts which we know innately, but are not 'received wisdom'
by leaders now youbger than we are, despite the proven track record -
it is our lot.
As regards China and Japan, with as many dollars as they hold, their
relationship to us is like our relatioship to the too-big-to-fails.
Recommended by 52 Readers
36.JG Caesarea December 2nd, 2009 10:07 am
I was not at the Tuesday lunch for opinion writers; however, the
president's determination to opt "for a surge now to help Afghans
rebuild their army and state into something decent — to win the
allegiance of the Afghan people" is patently absurd. A swelling
population, a history of tribal warfare, and an economy dependent upon
opium and hashish production, all destine Obama's "surge" to failure.
Win the "allegiance" of the Afghan people? To whom? To what?
Meanwhile, the billions that will be wasted in Afghanistan are needed
more than ever for nation-building back home in the U.S.
http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/
Recommended by 50 Readers
33.Carole in New Orleans New Orleans,La December 2nd, 2009 9:55 am
Rebuild the United States.We need jobs,jobs and jobs.Many communities
need infrastructure support. Schools,bridges, high speed rail,clean
water and air quality,hospitals, good doctors, teachers and social
services for citizens the list goes on and on What we don't need or
want is WAR! Nation building begins at home.You got that right
Mr.Friedman!
Recommended by 49 Readers
34.William OConnor Peekskill, New York December 2nd, 2009 10:04 am
America can't afford to support a nation of opium growers and
transporters who suppress their women. Stop wasting the peoples' money
and put those taxpayer funds to use here in USA so Americans can get
and keep good jobs!
Recommend Recommended by 48 Readers 20.MaryAnneWashingtonDecember
2nd, 20097:28 amThank you. It's all true. I wish Obama would listen. I
don't know who his constituency is anymore.
Recommended by 47 Readers
65.Blue Oxen Colorado December 2nd, 2009 10:45 am
Wow! Here's a columnist who loves the pronoun "I" and seems to use it
with more frequency every column: "I believe, I can't agree, I
recognize, I assess...." Sounds so high and mighty. Over 10 mentions
of "I" and only one mention of "O" as in Obama. The columnist who beat
the drum so fervently for war in Iraq (from the comfortable confines
of his extravagant home(s)) now sheepishly admits he may have been
wrong. Afghansitan, the economy, the environment...it's usually more
about Thomas "I" Friedman.
Recommended by 40 Readers
41.Lou New Jersey December 2nd, 2009 10:09 am
George Bush and his misguided buddy, D. Cheney weakened this nation in
so many ways and then handed the mess over to their successor. The
present GOP ready to continue that failed tradition. Our only
protection is a motivated and progressive democratic party. It's
unfortunate, but Obama's Afghan policy is going to alienate
progressives and the rest of the party already becoming indifferent.
We're not getting the real change Obama promised and I fear democrats
won't bother voting in 2012. The speech should have been about
breaking up the big banks - no one's in the mood to think about
Afghanistan - except Cheney and McCain.
Recommended by 40 Readers
21.Publicola Philadelphia December 2nd, 20097:28 am
1 Because you, Warren Buffett and all the other people now in power
were born in America makes your destruction of America the ultimate
terrorist act. You destroyed us economically and betrayed the US.
2. If we are broke we cannot save ourselves or you, and look who is
responsible.
3. The context of our lives is where we find ourselves, but it is our
free will that decides Everything. You may want to check out the
theology of western religions and compare them with that of the Arabs
Muslims to see the difference.
4. There are certainly many reasons why Arabs Muslims are resistant to
Freedom again look beyond yourself for such answers.
Recommended by 39 Readers
39.Ralf W Minneapolis December 2nd, 2009 10:08 am
Tom, I so much want to inhabit an America where the two things you
speak clearly about here could be possible:
1) a reality-based tax regime that rapidly and firmly signaled the end
of cheap-carbon energy, and,
2) acceptance of some small but as-well-managed-as-possible risk of an
attack here ("I am ready to live with a little less security" as you
say it).
Our country, and especially a significant cadre of media (far wider
than Fox) is in thrall to a party that believes that you can have all
the international adventurism you want without a single troubling
thought about cost or having Americans pay for it.
That self-same party of "patriots" will howl in unending agony at any
suggestion of taxing gasoline, and will demagogue any tax increase.
Our nation that has not been treated as adults in so long that it
feels like I am inhabiting a country filled almost entirely with angry
adolescents totally unwilling to accept any adult responsibility.
Along those same lines, we've been handed this absurd idea that we can
be forever safe from future attack. We are a nation what has no way of
even conceptualizing that our compatriots the Brits went to work in
London each day during WWII knowing that their workplace or home might
be blown to bits with them in it.
They had far more than stiff upper lips - they had stunning courage
and resolve to live with risk in service of freedom to come.
Our passive acceptance of the Patriot Act, useless and totally
dehumanizing torture (dehumanizing us, the torturers, to be crystal
clear), and so much else that is antithetical to a truly free and
morally upright nation shows how completely we are unready to "live
with a little less security."
I'm with you, Tom. But I suspect that only a small percentage of our
country is. I'd be delighted to be proven wrong about my weary
cynicism.
Recommended by 38 Readers
82.Charles Berouti Nice, France December 2nd, 200911:31 am
An evident war monger in 2003, you hid behind the obviously inexistent
WMDs to approve the war. You never stood up to denounce the lies.
Your position on Iraq has consistently and slowly altered based on the
events on the ground. Your opinion on the subject sounds hollow, as it
has been mostly formulated, and has varied, after the event.
To an Iraqi, if this disaster is the price to pay to get rid of Saddam
and install democracy, then please bring him back.
Recommended by 35 Readers
63.Observer Thailand December 2nd, 2009 10:45 am
Your point three is very much a zionist perspective. Arabs volunteer
for jihad against the US partially because of their economic
circumstances but mainly because of the US support for the zionist
agenda. This is counter to US interests and has cost the US dearly -
both financially and in lives.
As one of the 98% of Americans who have no religious interest in
zionism I despair at the foreign policy of the US that has gotten us
in to a military and financial mess when resources could have been
better applied at home - solving health care issues.
Recommended by 32 Readers
13.Traveler USA December 2nd, 2009 7:28 am
Keep the faith, Tom.
But I'm afraid I agree with Depeche Mode as well.
It used to be so civilized
You will always wonder how
It would have been if you'd only lied
It's too late to change events
It's time to face the consequence
For delivering the policy of truth
Never again is what you swore
The time before.
- Policy of truth
Recommended by 26 Readers
90.George Florida December 2nd, 2009 2:01 pm
Tom, you say, "Iraq was about “the war on terrorism.”
When are you guys going to give up this nonsensical formulation. There
was no al-Qa'ida there until we invaded. No matter how many times you
say it, it does not make it right. It just perpetuates the myth.
Recommended by 25 Readers
128.nesralr San Francisco December 2nd, 2009 2:42 pm
What? WHAT? It was never about the WMDs? The best reason for this
terrible war with its deaths and expense was `to see if we could
partner with Iraqis to help them build something that does not exist
in the modern Arab world:' WHAT THE? Lets go and bankrupt America,
kill more than 50,000 Iraqis and destroy America's credibility across
the world `To see if we can partner with the Iraqis.' WHAT??
I don't remember this partnership line of thinking back when you were
head cheerleader for the war. It was: LOOK OUT, those nasty arabs are
going to KILL US ALL! Gas! Flame! Chemicals! Nukes! al Qaida!
Tom, it's way way to late to try to backfill with intellectual
reasons. The depth of your wrongness on this subject in the past
disqualifies you from commenting on it in the present.
Recommended by 25 Readers
110.chris New York December 2nd, 2009 2:42 pm
What are you talking about?
We are in the middle east for oil and because of the Israeli Lobby.
Period. It has nothing to do with caring one wit about democracy or
helping people, or even helping the vast majority of Americans.
It is simply power politics. All else is just rhetoric to justify
actions determined by the aforementioned forces.
Please understand this.
The Taliban are successful because they have the support of the
people. If they didn't, they'd be wiped out by now.
However you are right about one thing.
Every dollar we spend there is a dollar we don't spend on science, on
education, on infrastructure, on the poor and needy.
We should leave. We killed women, children, and men for revenge. We
got our blood, now let's get out.
Recommended by 25 Readers
58.B. MullIrvine, CA December 2nd, 2009 10:42 am
Who can keep track of you? Beating the drums for war one day. Beating
a retreat the next. I'm putting you down as another NO on the foolish
AfPak war. President Obama should take note because when it inevitably
goes terribly you and your fellow hawks will rip him to shreds. I
strongly oppose this war not because it costs too much but because I
believe it will make America unsafe. Whereas Iraq was a not-worth-it
war on one man, Afghanistan is an impossible war on a place. A
strategy of clearing the land and trying to paint over centuries of
anti-imperialist resistance is insanity. The Obama administration has
no idea how to win those hearts and minds. They can't even win hearts
and minds here at home. McChrystal said it himself: Be humble. A
massive escalation of the war is not humble.
Recommended by 25 Readers
30.Kris Virgina December 2nd, 2009 8:01 am
The real issue, the real nightmare scenario, is Al Qaeda taking over a
nuclear Pakistan. So why not tell Pakistan to give its nukes to us for
safekeeping, at least until things are stabilized in the region, and
in return, we will respond to any attack upon them, even one from
India. We have this agreement with other countries, so why not
Pakistan? And if Al Qaeda takes over Pakistan, they at least will not
get their hands on nuclear weapons.
Recommended by 24 Readers
9.justice Atlanta December 2nd, 2009 7:28 am
Now the warmongers get their war escalation; nation building is
expensive but nation destroying by the never ending wars, Iraq, Afghan
and USA, is cost free, and deficit neutral. This we do not believe,
not anymore.
Recommended by 24 Readers
35.David Blackburn Pau, France December 2nd, 2009 10:04 am
Very good thoughts, but we're already there. If we pulled out now and
there were an attack on US soil that could be in anyway twisted to
resemble being related to the pull out (like Saddam Hussein's link to
the 9/11 attacks,) Republicans would eat Democrats alive.
Along with our daily troop losses, we need to publish the American
lives lost because of ineffective health care, climate change and the
terrorism in our streets due to gangs and violence. Yes, bring the
troops home in 2011, invest in neighborhood policing and put those
guys out on our streets.
Recommended by 23 Readers
17.D. Gundun Washington DC December 2nd, 2009 7:28 am
Friedman explains every reason to oppose escalation and no reason to
justify a limited presence. If we can win we should try to win. If
America can't win then we should exit, not hang around. Sorry to those
expecting President to withdraw, but escalation was inevitable. For
those willing to accept reality, the Trench provides counterinsurgency
analysis at www.hadalzone.blogspot.com.
Recommended by 23 Readers
37.kchisau Phoenix December 2nd, 2009 10:07 am
I agree with Thomas Friedman. The more I look at it, the more I agree
with Mr. Friedman that the goals are worthy but it is just too
expensive in money and the lives of our soldiers. I too believe I can
live with a little less security at home in exchange for building our
country. I have faith in our country's security forces, especially if
we have the money saved from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If these
homeland forces are found lacking, we have the power to change that
here. We have little power to change the corrupt government of
Afghanistan.
Recommended by 22 Readers
60.R John India December 2nd, 2009 10:44 am
To me, the most important reason for the Iraq war was never W.M.D. It
was to see if we could partner with Iraqis to help them build
something that does not exist in the modern Arab world: a state, a
context, where the constituent communities — Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds
— write their own social contract for how to live together without an
iron fist from above. Iraq has proved staggeringly expensive and
hugely painful. The mistakes we made should humble anyone about nation-
building in Afghanistan. It does me.
Iraq was about “the war on terrorism.”
Dear Tom,
As youve said the world is flat - and thinking is not restricted to
Tom Friedman only. The reasons for attacking Iraq applied just as well
to North korea. They insisted they have lotsa WMD, had no democracy
babes and bell marching and ringing, member of the axis of evil club,
and once democracy was seeded they could dominoe china into a
democracy.
But instead of trying something like Iraq the US wanted China to talk
to them. Reason they had real WMD and the US knew it.
They attacked Iraq on basis of WMD and terrorrist ties (whereas the
place in northern Iraq where there were some al quaida terrorists -
flourished under the protection of US enforced no-fly zone) because
they knew Iraq was defenceless.
the few pointers may be considered:
British soldiers were sent to battle in defective suits.
US soldieres took off the chemical suits as they neared Bagdad - when
a cornered Saddam would have most chances to use them. They took off
the uncomforatble suits because the reason for maintaing the charade
was over and the US well knew there were no chemical or bio weapons.
All the sure shot red hot pointed out by US as wmd sites was a bust on
checking. This did not tember the raging hardon the Us prez has for
Iraq. Blix asked for 3 months - instead a frightened admn forced him
to pull out - for the truth may come out - that Iraq didnt have WMD,
as was subsequently proved by spending hundreds of Millions of US taz
payer money on Kay and Charlie. The precious cassus belli had to be
protected. I remember the face of the president those days - he looked
as malovelent and shifty as a cornered rat.
By this singular cowardly action of the US has covered itself in
shame.
Unfortunately for the US admn, greed overwhelmed them. Instead of
dumping the country on the UN - a la kosovo, you tried to make it a
giant gravy train for the halliburtons and KBR - who merrily proceeded
to loot the tax payer (and moved to dubai - ouch!).
What will the US get out of Iraq fro the trillion dollars and treasure
of soldiers? I would say nothing. Last I heard they were buying
ordinance from eastern europe. There is no love lost for all the
mayhem and carnage achieved by George Bush and his enablers on
Iraquis. Right now the ruling elite are cynically using US kids for
their own protection and getting close to Iran. They are laughing at
the US.
Your half apology is accepted. And whenever you start feeling all
noble about yourself and your country's intentions, please remember
North korea, witout democracy, with WMD. Remember we all can think and
put two and two together.
Best Regards - the truth like it is :)
Recommended by 21 Readers
59.donnolo Monterey, CA December 2nd, 2009 10:43 am
Of course we can "make Afghanistan into Norway." Or at least Afghans
can do it, but it will take time. It took a thousand years to turn
Norsemen into Norwegians. Eight years have already been wasted.
Your argument that the war in Iraq was a reasoned, consequential act
and the war in Afghanistan is overreach crumbles if Iraq fails to
"find that self-sustaining formula to live together." Actually, almost
everyone except the leaders of the previous administration
acknowledges now that invading Iraq while neglecting the task of
nation-building in Afghanistan was hubristic folly and a terrible case
of missed opportunity.
Recommended by 19 Readers
18.Al Denver, CO December 2nd, 2009 7:28 am
Hats off Friedman.
Keep Afganistan Limited. America was founded as a Constitutional
Republic not a democracy where 51 percent overrides 49 percent. We
need to go back to the basics where we can't grant freedom and rebuild
every nation but we can start with our own.
Recommended by 19 Readers
12.Harvey ko10024 December 2nd, 2009 7:28 am
This may be true,but I think it is a guess. Either position may be
true.
I think Obama made the other choice because he thought it might be
more politically usefull. I think he probably knew that it was a 50/50
guess of which position would be the historically correct one and
thought he should take the seemingly tougher position which would give
him more support in the country as a forceful leader. Something he
could use in dealing with domestic problems.
Recommended by 19 Readers
134.Dr. AGR New York, NY December 2nd, 20092:42 pm
Mr. Friedman: Your assertion that our misadventures in Iraq were about
a "war on terrorism" is specious at best. Prior the US-led invasion,
there was virtually no relationship between Saddam Hussein's
disastrous regime and fundamentalist terrorism. The connection was
forged in the aftermath of the Bush administration's arrogant and ill-
planned attempt at the remaking of a troubled, but sovereign nation
into a twisted free-market zealots' vision of "true democracy."
Recommended by 18 Readers
87.HGBowie, MD December 2nd, 2009 1:55 pm
It's too bad that a quarter of a million Muslims (at the very least)
had to die before you came to this conclusion. Maybe attacking
countries "because we can" (your words) is not such a good policy
after all. We have hundreds of thousands dead, two countries in
shambles, and we're broke. Are we any safer for it? I doubt it.
Recommended by 18 Readers
77.Mark Los Angeles December 2nd, 2009 11:30 am
Such a dilemma is another reason to impeach Bush and Cheney for their
lies and misconducts that saddle America for generations.
Recommend Recommended by 18 Readers 132.MarcusSwedenDecember 2nd,
20092:42 pmSo, Mr Friedman, to you the Iraq war was not about WMD
threat but about a social experiment by nationbuilding aimed at
reshaping the Arab world.
ILLEGAL! WAR CRIME! NOT SANCTIONED BY THE UNITED NATIONS!
There is a reason we have international law. Who are you to advocate
breaching it, Mr Friedman?
Recommended by 17 Readers
51.Chandra Varanasi Broomfield, CO December 2nd, 2009 10:13 am
First of all, did anyone care to analyze why it did cost nearly
trillion dollars to wage these two wars? That is outlandishly
expensive! Seriously, I can't comprehend as to how that kind of money
got spent. Obviously, defense contractors must be raking in. But,
remember, America as a superpower is supposed to have the wherewithal
to fight a world war! Here it is, fully drained by fighting a couple
of third world countries. I really do not understand it!!
India fights Kashmir insurgents. It did not cost them 250 billion
dollars! Why does it cost US that much to fight Afghanistan? The
reason it is relevant is that these counterinsurgency wars take time.
India has been at it for more than a decade now. Finally, they are
within sight of victory. If a country such as US is bleeding itself
financially like this, obviously it can't wage a long-term war.
Friedman should focus on why it is costing that much. It is absurd to
read US pleading poverty as a reason for not fighting a war.
Recommended by 16 Readers
45.F.X. Feeney Santa Monica, California December 2nd, 2009 10:11 am
This is a very moving, and thoughtful piece by Friedman. I'm grateful
for his lucid declaration of faith, but must disagree.
Obama has set a time limit, and he has asked our allies for help.
These are vital steps away from creating a quagmire.
Some have argued that setting a time limit helps the Taliban and their
He-Man-Woman-Haters-Club of fellow jihadis simply play a waiting game,
and sweep in like cossacks once we've quit the stage. I argue the
opposite, that our renewed effort buys time -- a priceless commodity.
If the Afghani people can be strengthened with our help between now
and 2011, so much the better. Our work will be worth it.
The finite time frame is in itself an admission that we have urgent
business here at home. At the same time, Obama's measured plan owns
our collective responsibility for what was already started in 2001. We
cannot simply abandon these people to fate after years of distracted
effort. An extra 18 months of focused assistance will give them a real
chance, and a more stable Afghanistan will only save us money and
spare us from added struggle in the future.
Afghanistan is a nation that predates Alexander the Great. "Iraq" is a
memo T.E. Lawrence sent Winston Churchill. Admittedly, that was one
heck of a memo -- but which is the easier "nation" to defend, and
"build?" Saddam Hussein scolded, literally as the noose was fitted to
his neck, "There is no Iraq without me." The "me" in that sentence
should be read as a metaphor for any entrenched strongman. None exists
in Iraq now: Democracy will take a generation to develop, if a cease-
fire can be imposed that long.
Afghanistan by contrast will exist after we leave. Obama's policy
answers the practical riddle: In what condition? Unlike the Iraqis,
the Afghanis don't need a strong head of state to thrive, only a
people strong enough to defend themselves from cultish zealots.
Recommended by 16 Readers
38.Solon New Delhi December 2nd, 2009 10:08 am
India is actually has the 3rd largest Muslim population in the World.
Not many people realize that Indonesia actually has more than 200
Million Muslims.
Recommended by 16 Readers
76.SGT Cowell Ft Campbell, KY December 2nd, 2009 11:18 am
You make several good arguements against the deployment of additional
troops, but I feel like you just don't understand the depth of the
commitment that we have already made in our struggle against Islamic
exstremism in Afganistan. Our nation committed it self to a life and
death struggle there, against an enemy who attacked us on our home
soil. I know a lot of people in this nation didn't realize what that
meant when they first supported the war, especially people in the
media and in Congress. But you better belive our enemies understood
it. So to argue that somehow American prestige in the world, especialy
the Muslism world, can be saved by abandoning our Afgan allies, (as
imperfect as they may be), is absurd on it's face. How can you ask, as
you do many times in your columns, for the moderate Muslim majority to
stand against exstremism, when we are so quick to abdandon our Muslim
partners when things get tough? We invaded their country, we killed
thier civilians. We owe it to them and ourselves to stay and finish
it; to stand and say it wasn't all in vain. That's the only way
America can ever claim we're a little piece of what we always tell
ourselves we are. Thats what I believe, and that's what I'm fighting
for.
Recommended by 15 Readers
64.Tony Kranz Encinitas, California December 2nd, 2009 10:45 am
"I am ready to live with a little less security and a little-less-
perfect Afghanistan."
Sure, you're ready to live with a little less security in Afghanistan.
But if you were one of our fighting men and women in that country, you
might want some more help with security. I'm prepared to support the
President's decision to send more resources to try and finish the work
we started immediately after 9/11. That we shifted our focus to Iraq
sadly created two disasters.
You seem to be going out of your way in this column to avoid
supporting the President's decision. You make a convoluted effort to
rationalize your contention that "a little less security" is
acceptable. You should reconsider.
Recommended by 15 Readers
57.karh California December 2nd, 2009 10:42 am".
Many big bad things happen in the world without America, but not a lot
of big good things" - Do you mean to imply that wars in Vietnam,
Cambodia, El Salvador, Guatemala, etc. happened because of the lack of
US involvement?
Recommended by 15 Readers
161.Sam DWayne, PA December 2nd, 2009 4:29 pm
"To me, the most important reason for the Iraq war was never W.M.D. It
was to see if we could partner with Iraqis to help them build
something..."
You supported the illegal, if not criminal, Iraq war because you
wanted "to see if" we could do something? That's a reason to invade
and kill? I wonder how the Times allows you to continue as a
columnist, and I wonder why you are not completely ashamed to show
your face and your opinions.
Recommended by 14 Readers
74.Gloria Endres Philadelphia December 2nd, 2009 11:15 am
The only part of this argument with which I agree is lessening of our
dependence on middle eastern oil. Without our cash, these struggling
societies would not have the funding to carry out any of their crazy
ambitions and might actually mature.
As for nation building as an excuse to invade a sovereign nation that
had nothing to do with attacking us, what chutzpah! What total
arrogance! This is the Bush doctrine run amuck. Who cares whether
these countries resemble Norway? We have just experienced all the
"moving parts" that any observant person could have predicted would
stop any such transformation.
The pursuit of oil is what has primarily led us to become violently
involved with regime change in the middle east. Not democracy or
freedom or even curbing the spread of weapons.
Tom is right for once about the negative impact on our nation of the
folly of the Bush doctrine. Those of us who predicted this nine years
ago were laughed at, but he finally agrees with us.
We need to end this costly madness, become energy independent, and
abandon the idea that we can force our will on other nations.
Recommended by 14 Readers
48.penfield California December 2nd, 2009 10:12 am
There are serious political instabilities in Afghanistan and Pakistan,
and both are close to being completely overtaken by Islamic
fundamentalists, and Pakistan has nukes.
However, that said, $60 Billion US and 12 whole months of additional
troops will do NOTHING to change this. Obama's judgment is atrocious,
and I've lost all confidence in him.
The only people who can police and control funding of these Islamic
fundamentalist and terrorist are other Muslims. Anyone that thinks
otherwise, needs their head examined, including Obama.
Recommended by 14 Readers
42.dayle ahrensfort edward, ny December 2nd, 2009 10:09 am
Since our Commander in Chief wedded the announcement of the surge with
the goal for troop withdrawal within 18 months, how can you call this
strategy "nation building"? It seems that the President has struck the
right balance: get the paddles (our troops) and recharge the heart
(the Afghanies), then stand back and watch that muscle pump on its
own.
Recommended by 14 Readers
31.Malik Mukhtar Multan, Pakistan December 2nd, 2009 9:55 am
Iraq was engaged in war with Iran for many years under Saddam
Government.
Invasion of Iraq over Kuwait. Severe sanctions at Iraq.
In this context " partner with Iraqis to HELP them building something
that does not exist in the modern Arab world: a state, a context,
where the constituent communities_ Shiites, sunnis & Kurds write their
own social contract for how to live together without an iron fist from
above"
I am sorry Sir, the Objectives of Iraq war are not easy to understand.
But it is obvious that the consequences are very painful. Using of
military power by another country that was foreign for its population
does not meet those objectives that you mention in above lines.
Again I am sorry that " war on terrorist" in Afghanistan is possibly
different objective than the OBJECTIVE of NATION BUILDING in
Afghanistan.
Recommended by 13 Readers
97.pbgolfs Asheville, NC December 2nd, 2009 2:01 pm
To commit to 18 more months in Afghanistan is an exercise in futility.
The country cannot be brought from the stone age to the space age in a
year and a half and to suggest that it can is ludicrous.
Al Queda no longer resides in Afghanistan -and never lived in Iraq;
bring our troops home and focus on rebuilding America before it's too
late.
Recommended by 12 Readers
85.nikolas van egten New Amsterdam December 2nd, 2009 1:55 pm
The United State's recent military forays into other countries is
putting it on the path to both fiscal bankruptcy and moral
irrelevancy. And like the Russians before it 30 years ago, who by
virtue of their border were in a much more strategically advantageous
position and yet still failed, The US is also refusing to bow to the
realities of a mountain civilization, one ruled by arcane ancient laws
of tribes that know only the loyalty that surrounds their immediate
environs.
The world watched as the USSR became bankrupted by the arms race with
the US in the 1980's. That strategy, under Ronald Reagan's watch,
worked almost flawlessly to weaken Russia's role as world power. Now,
as then, It is as if the needless indulgences of the US in Iraq and
Afghanistan were borne out of a similar Al Queda ploy to bankrupt the
US, with the desired results of increased international and domestic
impotence.
We can stop now, and focus on the important tasks at hand domestically
- of creating more jobs domestically, preventing the surge in
foreclosures that are sure to come, and making health insurance a
necessity and not a luxury. If the US continues to expose it's troops
in thankless, bloody conflicts from which there will be no foreseeable
end, It will become more susceptible to abdicating it's ability to
positively influence world affairs. There is a better way. And it
begins here at home, and not in the Khyber Pass.
Recommended by 12 Readers
73.theotherhalf CA December 2nd, 20091 1:13 am
Nation building needs to begin at home! We have people homeless and
hungry right here and we could use some infrastructure jobs and
schools ourselves. Why is it we don't have the money to do what is
needed here, but we can always find a few billion to try and bribe
people into liking us?
We wouldn't have to worry about terrorists doing us harm in this
country if we hired and trained more people to keep track of people
who are in this country on expired visas and we concentrated on
securing our OWN borders and ports.
Recommended by 12 Readers
164.Virginia Cape Cod, MA December 2nd, 2009 4:29 pm
Iraq was never about terrorism. It drives me nuts when people
perpetuate this myth. The only thing terrorism had to do with Iraq was
BushCo's exploitation of 9/11 to get their long-wanted personal
vendetta and war for oil going.
Recommended by 11 Readers
305.Pauline NYC December 2nd, 2009 7:02 pm
Missing paragraph from my previous post:
You, Tom, were on the forefront of this wrongheaded, macho, go-get'em
attack on everything Islamic that sold these wars to a racist and
xenophobic America.
You were a reliable foot soldier in the drumbeat for war. You turned
from a seemingly thoughtful columnist and writer into a huckster for
muscular jingoism of the worst kind.
This belated awakening is disingenuous at best. I believe it is a late
attempt to recover your own creds, given the shameless way the Obama
administration courted you for your reliability as a left wing war-
monger in their attempt to hold on to their base while turning into
Bush III.
Doesn't cut it, Tom. You're a few days late and a few billion dollars
short.
Recommended by 11 Readers
109.sherrythere Glen Allen, VA December 2nd, 2009 2:01 pm
May we take your sentiments a step further? In this season of giving,
rather than sending our hard earned dollars overseas to fund "disaster
relief," let us finally recognize that the greatest disaster of all is
occurring right under our noses, here in the US. 1) Our dropout rate
is now over 30%; 2) We have more adults behind bars (over one per 100)
than any nation on earth and 75% of children with an incarcerated
parent will also end up behind bars; 3) acts of violence, suicide and
depression are at an all-time high among our kids.
The American fabric, which has been used to break the fall of so many
around the world, is now rife with dry rot. The time has come to
repair our own sails.
Jon Mkl Sherry
Camp*aign for American Kids
Recommended by 11 Readers
154.carlos Torres ny December 2nd, 2009 4:01 pm
Mr Friedman, you were one of the most vocal supporters of the Iraq
invasion. I saw you in just about every talk show. You spoke freely,
almost partisanly about Saddam's WMD (now you say "To me, the most
important reason for the Iraq war was never W.M.D.") Wow! Do you even
believe that? Do you expect us to? And then you say, "Iraq was about
“the war on terrorism.” This seems exremely close to that discredited
argument of a Saddam-AlQaeda link, Mohammed Atta in Czech republic,
all that stuff. No evidence ever linked the Islamic Fundamentalist
terrorists that gather under the Qaeda umbrella and the Nasserist-
Stalinist-Secular Baath regime. Mr Friedman you and Ms Judith Miller
bear your share of guilt for the senseless killing.
Recommended by 11 Readers
96.Charles Humphreys 419 NE Juanita Ct., Cape Coral, FL December 2nd,
20092:01 pm
You have written a good commentary but I take exception to several
things found in pillar #4. One, You may believe that the U.S.went to
war with Iraq to partner up with Iraqis to build something... The
truth is Pres. G.W.Bush invaded Iraq illegally in search of WMDs and
Saddam Hussein. Two, don't use "we" when refering to, "The mistakes we
made..." The mistake was made by Pres. Bush and his administration.
Recommended by 11 Readers
119.Stafford Smith Seattle December 2nd, 2009 2:42 pm
Too bad Friedman continues to dance around his own beating of the war
drums in support of invading Iraq. His advice now would seem more
credible if he were to take responsibility for his past errors. Then
we might have reason to believe that he has actually learned something
from his past mistakes.
Recommended by 11 Readers
46.P.J. Cools Bristol, Pa December 2nd, 2009 10:12 am
Ditto. I couldn't agree more. The president's well-intentioned, but
misguided. Afghanistan is a bad slot machine that never pays up. We're
throwing money (which we don't have) and American blood and treasure
down a bottomless pit. But if, as some are claiming, setting a
withdrawal date would signal to the enemy that they can simply wait us
out, then fine. While they waiting for us to leave, our troops can
focus on building up and effective Afghan army that, when we're gone,
will be well-ready to take on the bastards in a true war of attrition.
If this is what the Taliban wants, let's grant them their wish. But
eight years is enough! It's time we bring home our troops and spend
all that money here. America's in need of nation building itself. Al
Qaeda cannot and will not be defeated in Afghanistan, no matter how
long we stay and there.
Recommend Recommended by 11 Readers
298.Brian J. Stone, Sr.Ma December 2nd, 2009 6:59 pm
Iraq has cost us Afghanistan and now Pakistan. Period. There was no
moral crusade to free Iraqis from tyranny, it was about oil and we
mercinaried our military and bakrupted our society for it. It has
amazed me how many supposedly educated people have been duped into
this idealist scam. Lets remember our history here, we supported,
financed and armed the Mujahdin in our quest to topple the Soviet
Union. Then we slapped ourselves on the back and abandoned a war torn
country which left the void for the Taliban and Al Queda. Cheney
ignored commanders in Afgahnistan, gave Bin Laden a free pass out of
Afghanistan in 2001 when he was trapped in the Tora Bora mountains,
into Pakistan. There was no Al Queda in Iraq pre invasion or WMD's or
much else that was going to be a direct threat to us at the time. Now
we have a destabilized nuclear Pakistan, that actually does have
NUKES! The chain of intended consequences continues and again we are
talking about Afgahnistan the same way we did all those years ago, but
wait, how many raking members of congress involved in the decision
then are still sitting with the same attitude? Too many I'm afraid,
lets not have history repeat itself here by giving the extremists a
continued safe haven in Afghanistan or anywhere else. You have the
history correct Mr. Friedman, but don't be short sighted here on this,
unfortunately the cost of the wrong war has only profited big oil, the
Haliburton's, Wall Street and the Bin Ladens. The legacy of Dick
Cheneys defacto presidency.
Recommended by 10 Readers
284.Jack Mahoney Maine December 2nd, 2009 6:54 pm
My dentist thinks I should floss more. If you ask my doctor, he'll
tell you that what I need is more exercise. Similarly, if we ask the
military, we'll learn that the solution to our declining status as a
financial superpower is to send more of our kids to shoot people who
disagree with us. As George Carlin said, the one thing we do well as
Americans is bomb brown people. So let's play to our strengths, shall
we?
Recommended by 10 Readers
92.Lowell D. Thompson Chicago December 2nd, 2009 2:01 pm
Tom, you wrote:
"To me, the most important reason for the Iraq war was never W.M.D....
Iraq has proved staggeringly expensive and hugely painful. The
mistakes we made should humble anyone about nation-building in
Afghanistan. It does me."
Obviously, it didn't humble you enough.
I actually agree with some of your rationale for getting out of
Afghanistan pronto. But based on your facile, deadly and hugely
expensive bad call in Iraq, if I see you pointing in one direction, I
vamoose in the other.
Recommended by 10 Readers
62.D.S. Arthur La Mesa, CA December 2nd, 2009 10:45 am
Will someone please explain how "nation building" in Afghanistan (or
anywhere else for that matter) guarantees that terrorist cells won't
find sanctuary there which may subsequently again threaten America's
security. Afghanistan under the Taliban in the late 1990's was already
relatively "stable" ... but that didn't prevent them from offering
(after, presumably, a few well-placed bribes) al-Qaeda a little real
estate hither and yon within the country in which to set up shop. What
nobody seems to consider is that, even if the Taliban is defeated
(whatever THAT means), what is to prevent the victor (whoever THAT is)
from either "importing" other terrorist organizations or perhaps
creating new ones of their own? We Americans, rather notorious for our
geopolitical shortsightedness, seem to take it as an article of faith
that in Afghanistan a resurrgent Taliban would most certainly
jeopardize our own security whereas any other political entity
empowered there just as surely would not. Maybe so ... but how do we
KNOW that?
Recommended by 10 Readers
304.Erick NYC December 2nd, 2009 7:02 pm
"To me, the most important reason for the Iraq war was never W.M.D. It
was to see if we could partner with Iraqis to help them build
something that does not exist in the modern Arab world"
Funny, that is not what M. Friedman said to Charlie Rose in May 2003:
" And what they needed to see was American boys and girls going from
house to house, from Basra to Baghdad, and basically saying: which
part of this sentence do you understand? You don’t think we care about
our open society? . . . . Well, Suck. On. This. That, Charlie, was
what this war was about."
Suck-on-this didn't really sound like an idealistic offer to "help",
and over 100,000 deaths later it is a bit late to pretend this was all
done in the name of democracy or development.
Recommended by 9 Readers
94.Bill Simpson Slidell, Louisiana December 2nd, 2009 2:01 pm
A huge waste of life and money.
Recommended by 9 Readers
153.Timezoned New York City December 2nd, 2009 4:01 pm
Thomas Friedman first writes, as explanation of why he supported
invading Iraq:
"To me, the most important reason for the Iraq war was never W.M.D. It
was to see if we could partner with Iraqis to help them build
something that does not exist in the modern Arab world: a state, a
context, where the constituent communities — Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds
— write their own social contract for how to live together without an
iron fist from above."
So it was about removing a dictatorship, a form of government we
disapprove of. It was about invading a country, removing their
government, and establishing one of our own choosing. Whatever one may
think of that justification of Friedman's, at least it's clear.
Next however, he writes:
"Iraq was about “the war on terrorism.”"
It was? I thought he just wrote that it had nothing to do with
mythical weapons of mass destruction and all of the other false claims
of the Bush administration and Neoconservatives, the claims that
Sadaam had anything to do with the attacks on 9/11 or that he was in
cahoots in any way with Al Quaeda, as we now know that he wasn't.
To further confuse things, Friedman continues this last bit of
illogic:
"Iraq was about “the war on terrorism.” The Afghanistan invasion, for
me, was about the “war on terrorists.”"
I see.
Clear as mud.
So let's imagine what this is supposed to mean. The "war on terrorism"
is presumably the part that Friedman describes above about why we
invaded Iraq. Since it's well-known now that Iraq had nothing to do
with terrorism against us, and this is accepted by the vast majority
of the country now, this idea that invading Iraq was a "war on
terrorism" is as nonsensical as it sounds.
Next, Friedman contrasts this with Afghanistan, which is a "war on
terroists".
So terrorism and terrorists are separate now. In his mind.
As Matt Taibbi has pointed out endlessly, Thomas Friedman is such an
inept, confusing writer that even his muddled points are hard to
discern, buried as they are in even more muddled writing.
We can try here, imagining that Friedman is trying to say that
invading Iraq was an effort to prevent future terrorism (I'm guessing
here, who knows) whereas Afghanistan was an effort to go after proven
terrorists.
How even this generous interpretation makes any sense however is hard
to see, since as we saw above, no connections between Iraq and any
terrorists were found to exist before we invaded the country. Al
Quaeda wasn't there, Sadaam and the Bathists weren't involved with
9/11, and so on.
For some of these people it seems just impossible to admit, finally,
that we invaded Iraq because we disliked their form of government,
rightly or wrongly, and that was about it. There are more nefarious
and certainly possible sub-reasons, that we wanted oil, that we wanted
to create a US-friendly military base in the region, and so on, all of
which are also likely.
However the only one that's openly admitted, the only one that's left
that you can openly admit, after all of the baloney about WMD and
terrorism and Bin Laden and Sadaam in cahoots and so on, is that "He
was a dictator, and we disapproved."
Surely he was, and our disapproval was no doubt warranted. A lot of
countries feel the same way about us however. That doesn't give them
the right to invade.
Recommended by 9 Readers
68.the Frenchman RMD63 Somewhere in the US December 2nd, 2009 10:46 am
The argument that we need to go to war to maintain peace in the region
is always shaky in my view. The US will always have enemies - even if
it gets rid of the taliban. I think the US and the UN should
concentrate on Pakistan and on disarming unstable nations (with
peaceful incentives)that own a nuclear arsenal. To me this is the only
real threat that needs to be addressed. We don't want crazies like Bin
Laden pushing the big red button. The US should not waste its time
trying to build nations when it can't fix its own house. This is
ridiculous.
Recommended by 9 Readers
56.Kyung LI, NY December 2nd, 2009 10:16 am
The president has made a decision. We who elected him as our commander
in chief should support him all the way. With this surge in troops and
his clear exit plan, withdrawals by 2011, that leaves an awfully small
amount of time for nation-building. Under the protective cover of our
military with should summon all the civilian volunteers not only here
but in all our allied nations to help build the roads, schools,
hospitals, etc that will help create a sustainable Afghanistan. Is not
going to be easy, but we are the same nation that survived a civil war
abolishing slavery in the process, lived thru two world wars ridding
of the Nazis and helping rebuild Europe post-war,out-lasted the
Communists during the cold war, and elected this great president. This
I belive. .
.
Recommended by 9 Readers
32.Gautam De Woodbridge, New Jersey, USA December 2nd, 2009 9:55 am
You are dead right as usual Mr. Friedman. Even 130,000 more troops
will not be able to wipe out Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan. Reason? A
guaranteed sanctuary of the terrorists in Pakistan, a "US ally to
fight terrorism" - biggest irony of the planet. And another is the
abundant flow of oil money reaching hands of Laden & Co. It is mighty
task to fight US and NATO forces year after year. The fact that they
can pull this proxy war against arguably the best army in the world,
speaks volume about the amount of money from oil rich middle east, and
professional training they receive from Pakistan Army pockets. Unless
these two are stopped, sending more troops is a tragic mistake. To
quote 'All The President's Men', "Just follow the money" and cut off
the flow. Al-Qaeda will come to a grinding halt in a year.
Recommended by 9 Readers
303.J. Appleton Virginia December 2nd, 2009 7:01 pm
I'm not sure I've ever been so frustrated than I have been with what's
happened in this country for the last nine years. Immediately after
the 9/11 attacks -- which were not launched by any foreign country,
but by a gang of international criminals -- we had the world right
where we wanted it. We were even on the cusp of capturing the
mastermind himself in the Tora Bora mountains -- and we let him get
away. And then we launched a completely unnecessary war against a two-
bit dictator who -- we KNEW! -- had nothing to do with it. And there's
legitimacy in the notion that that war was OK as an experiment in
nation building for people completely alien to us? It's patently
ridiculous! If we have ever felt compelled to launch a war to do away
with a two-bit dictator, what's wrong with Cuba? It's only 90 miles
away; think of the savings in logistics alone! But no, we launched a
costly war, lying to ourselves that we were part of a "coalition," and
for what? And now comes a scenario so frighteningly like Vietnam that
it PROVES how awful the teaching of history is in this country: a
president who wants to change the social agenda, inheriting a no-win
situation in an Asian country where all the "enemy" has to do is just
wait us out. That's it. But unlike Vietnam -- from which we recovered,
and even eventually obtained a budget surplus -- we are unlikely to
ever recover. The cover of this week's Newsweek is right, I fear: we
are an "empire in decline." And it's because we just don't have enough
sense to really, really think about what's critical to our own
national interests. I'm sorry, Mr. Friedman, but anyone who supported
the war in Iraq is forever unqualified to offer suggestions on the
trajectory of our policy. I saw it for what it was: stupid and
unnecessary, because I was educated in history -- and I lived as a
thinking adult during the Vietnam war -- and I understood that we
could not then, and not ever, "win" a war like that, at least with
military strategies and military tactics, no matter how thoughtful
they were. Just as in Vietnam, we simply have not been fighting -- in
Iraq, and now in Afghanistan -- an enemy that can be militarily
defeated on our terms; won't happen. I am so very saddened that
President Obama has played the new Kennedy/Johnson into the hands of
the new Bundy-Rostow-McNamaras. I had expected more and better; I was
wrong. And American history will now repeat itself, and someday, there
will be a new, sad, memorial on the Mall in Washington, visited by the
maimed until they, too, all pass away, forgotten, for a future
generation to make the same mistakes. The only question is whether, in
our stupidity, there will be much of an America left.
Recommended by 8 Readers
285.Carole A. Dunn Ocean Springs, Miss. December 2nd, 2009 6:54 pm
For the life of me I can't imagine what the powers-that-be expect to
accomplish in a country where the average person looks at us as
nothing more than occupiers. We tore Iraq apart just to get rid of a
vicious dictator who should have been quietly assassinated.
Our own country is in a shambles. Are we going to screw around minding
everyone else's business until we are such a mess at home that our
creditors send troops over here to "nation build?"
It's time we went to war against the corporate criminals who run this
country. It's time we ran the hypocrites out of government who try to
tell us how to live while their pants are at half-mast in some
hooker's bedroom. It's time we started taking education seriously so
that our citizens can overcome the ignorance that keeps them in chains
to the aforementioned.
Recommended by 8 Readers
105.John Tedder Greenwich, NY December 2nd, 2009 2:01 pm
It's too bad that the president can't go on television and announce
that we are sending 30,000 troops to Detroit, MI or Newark, NJ to
bring stability there. How much money are we going to spend rebuilding
foreign countries before we realize we should be spending the money
here in the United States? We need to stop being the world's
policeman.
Recommended by 8 Readers
150.MJM Boston, Ma December 2nd, 2009 4:01 pm
"The Warren Buffett principle: Everything I’ve ever gotten in life is
largely due to the fact that I was born in this country, America, at
this time with these opportunities for its citizens. It is the primary
obligation of our generation to turn over a similar America to our
kids."
Uh, Tom, "we" haven't all gotten what you've gotten. But glad to see
that you are ... grateful. Sort of. I'm just hoping for food and
shelter as I age.
Recommended by 8 Readers
129.Mariano Patalinjug Yonkers, New York December 2nd, 20092:42 pm
Yonkers, New York
02 December 2009
Many of America's leaders are still deluding themselves into thinking
that we are still living in the America immeditely after World War II.
That was the America as the wealthiest and the most pwerful and thus
the most dominant power on planet Earth. That was the America that
still had the resources to engage in historic confrontations against
Communism all over the world--from Korea to Central America to Vietnam
and other places.
But that was then. America has practically been bled white through all
these costly exertions and misadventures, including her unfortunate
invasion and occupation of Iraq which has cost her over $1 trillion.
She is now desperately confronting an economic recession of epic
dimensions which may yet morph into "The Great Depression of 2008."
She is already pretty much a mortally wounded warrior, and yet
President Barack Obama still truly believes that America can set
things right in Afghanistan--at a cost of billions of weakened U.S.
dollars which she does not have and either has to borrow from China or
get by running the printing presses overtime.
America's incipient decline is here and now.
Mariano Patalinjug
Recommended by 8 Readers
70.VB Portland, OR December 2nd, 2009 10:48 am
With the state of the economy, particularly unemployment and the ever
escalating national debt that is becoming harder to finance, this
strategy does nothing but dig us into a deeper hole. Both in terms of
dollars and priceless human lives.
Instead, we should draw down troops from other parts of the world as
well. Why not invest in better technology and use other effective
means to improve national security?
Sadly, this isn't the change we voted for. We owe it to our citizens
and to the coming generations to get out of reverse gear and move
forward on the road to prosperity. That by itself will set a powerful
example for others to follow.
Recommended by 8 Readers
300.GWS SUMMERVILLE,SC December 2nd, 2009 7:00 pm
two consecutive pieces touching on arab muslim "discontent" and no
mention of the 8oo lb israeli gorilla and our unmitigated enabling of
it.
Recommended by 7 Readers
297.Richard Maxwell Winter Haven, Florida, USA December 2nd, 2009 6:59
pm
Good Heavens, Tom! "The most important reason for the Iraq war was
never W.M.D. It was to see if we could partner with Iraqis to help
them" nation-build! No wonder THE NEW YORK TIMES would reject my job
application if I were to submit one. Good Lord! How does one engage in
civil discourse with a person who makes statements like that?
Then you close by saying we need "nation-building in America". I have
a little money left over after building my bomb shelter. Where do I
send my donation?
Recommended by 7 Readers
271.Susan Traversy New Hampshire December 2nd, 2009 6:51 pm
I am sorry that you omitted the other cost of this war, Mr. Friedman,
the human one. The thousands of people who have died, been injured,
and become permanently disabled, along with the millions who have
become refugees, deserve mention in any discussion of the war.
Recommended by 7 Readers
213.Des Johnson Forest Hills, 11375 December 2nd, 2009 6:41 pm
"To me, the most important reason for the Iraq war was never W.M.D. It
was to see if we could partner with Iraqis to help them build
something that does not exist in the modern Arab world..."
You cheered on an invasion of highly questionable legality justified
with patent lies and distortions "to see if...?"
I've never read such a lame and inexcusable reason for going to war,
with all its obvious bloody effects. Shame on you!
Recommended by 7 Readers
157.Carlos Turriago Jyvaskyla, Finland December 2nd, 2009 4:01 pm
Underlying Mr. Friedman’s thought is the assumption that the USA can
and should go around “making nations”, deposing regimes, etc., in
short, playing God. America has been doing that for a very long time
in the ME and other regions of the world and look at where that policy
has brought and keeps bringing them and the rest of us to. It is a
mode of thought based on assumed mandates that the USA has never
received from anywhere and that has to be disposed of, the sooner the
better. Mr. Friedman frets at the idea of a stronger Russia, China or
Iran parallel to a weakening of the USA. It must be pointed out,
however, that none of the three mentioned nations has invaded a
country in the near past and that none of them has hundreds of
military bases around the world. If I remember correctly, Russia did
invade Afghanistan some 30 yrs ago. Remember what happened then?
Admittedly Russia and China do have problems in their borders. America
has none, if it is not assumed that its borders run along the Pakistan-
Indian or the Colombia-Venezuela borders. Mr. Friedman should be
reminded that America has had a large role in creating the context in
which the Arab-Muslim world lives by deposing democratically elected
governments (Iran 1953) propping up unpopular regimes (Saudi Arabia),
creating monsters (Saddam and Osama) and starting immoral wars (Iraq).
You reap what you sow.
Recommended by 7 Readers
155.David Florida December 2nd, 2009 4:01 pm
* "That is what I believe. That is why I believe it. "
Thomas Friedman and the New York Times has blood on the hands syndrome
because they sold the Iraq war to the American people. An empire, such
as the United States of America, feeds its insatiable appetite for the
world's resources by shedding the blood of the impoverished powerless
resource owners, such as the unfortunate Iraqis.
Thomas Friedman seems to suggest that "they hate us for our freedom"
but this is not the case. Muslims in the Muddle East considered
themselves at war with the West because aggressive violent colonial
behavior by the West, especially Britain and thw United States.
The very moment that the West realized that the Muslims possessed oil
they began "purchasing" that oil with Muslim blood, oppressive
military action, covert operations and support for oppressive
dictators.
Throughout the 20th century, newspapers such as the New York Times
supported such actions on behalf of the American empire. Human life in
other countries had no value whatsoever compared to the value of oil.
The Iraq war fits within that context. Thomas Friedman supported and
defended the war without regret for many years while 100,000 Iraqi
civilians died and the American empire crumbled.
Now the American empire continues to crumble and it will die in
Afghanistan.
The United States of America will become powerless and impoverished.
If the American people don't like it, too bad.
http://www.flickr.com/dmathew1
Recommended by 7 Readers
102.BH Ann Arbor, Mi December 2nd, 2009 2:01 pm
OK Tom, time to get off your gas tax hobby horse. I realize it's a bit
outside the perceptual bubble of the expensed travel set, but millions
of Americans simply have to commute long distances to work and there
is little than can be done about that. Similarly, millions can not
afford to add the cost of a new car to already strained budgets. And a
$40,000 electric car is simply a fantasy solution that has no contact
with the real world. If you are going to tax something, tax new
vehicles according to their gas usage. And give a tax break to high
mileage cars and trucks.There is no exotic new technology required to
increase gas mileage. Just a reasonable market incentive. Taxing
gasoline is just another knife to the belly of those who work for a
living.
by 7 Readers
89.Le Gui Switzerland December 2nd, 2009 2:01 pm
"If you didn’t like a world of too-strong-America, you will really not
like a world of too-weak-America — where China, Russia and Iran set
more of the rules."
Interesting rethoric: you're either with America, or with the Chinese?
Mmh, we heard that somewhere, but where?...
Plus, about the scary scenario of China setting the rules: what about
that minor thing we call "US debt" and that China owns?
Recommended by 7 Readers
302.RAC New York, NY December 2nd, 2009 7:00 pm
Too little criticism of war-mongering, too late, Mr. Friedman. Why not
state the simple truth that we in the US are suffering and are not
being cared for by our own government? We cannot house, feed, employ,
educate, provide health care for ourselves. Yet, the narcissistic,
arrogant, self-serving Congress and President we have are squandering
our unearned "wealth" to fight wars of choice to enable and prop up
woman-hating regimes and cultures. Who profits from this? Only
Haliburton and the rest of the war machine. Why to American men (our
President and Congress) prefer to spend their time discussing women's
internal organs, their religiosity, and making war on other men -
instead of discussing the needs of our own people? To me it is obvious
that there is a rampant epidemic of male impotence playing itself out
in the form of trying to prove manhood in other ways -- by defeating
the rights of women, and defending the regimes of cruel woman-hating
men like those in Afghanistan. We need health care now - cure the male
impotence that is driving their belligerence and war-mongering.
Recommended by 6 Readers
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/opinion/02friedman.html
bademiyansubhanallah
Afghanistan, as Seen From West Point
By TOBIN HARSHAW
The Thread is an in-depth look at how major news and controversies are
being debated across the online spectrum.
For President Obama, losing the war would be bad. Losing the nation
would be worse. But what are we to make of his losing Andrew Sullivan?
Here is the commander in chief’s cheerleader in chief on last night’s
Afghanistan speech:
I confess I do not feel those highest hopes. I do not share his
confidence in American military and civilian power to turn the roiling
region of Afghanistan and Pakistan into something less threatening. I
see no reason after the last eight years to see how this can happen,
even with these new resources. But if you rule out withdrawal right
away, then this seems to me to be about the smartest strategy ahead.
But I see absolutely no reason to believe that it will mean withdrawal
of any significant amount in Obama’s first term.
Confused? If not, you will be after this: Via the Politico’s Arena,
supportive words from a man who’s been somewhat critical of the
president in the past, Rep. Joe Wilson.
I’m very pleased that he’s following the wishes of his commanders on
the ground. They are requesting reinforcements and the best exit
strategy is to win. By having the Afghan surge in the tradition of the
Iraq surge that conditions us to win.
Are enough troops being sent?
It should be what the commanders in the field request. I also have a
very personal feeling about the National Guard units there and the
work they are doing. My National Guard unit served there in ’07-’08. I
found out from them, visiting every three months that they were making
a real difference. It’s a challenge because of the high illiteracy
rate. But even with that they were making real progress, but needed
more troops. Now they are going to be provided. As a veteran myself
and father of four sons serving in the military, I have a deep
appreciation of the personnel involved here.
Michael Rubin, writing at Forbes, thinks that Obama is no Bush, and
that’s not a good thing:
Iraq’s surge succeeded because Bush convinced Iraqis that he would not
subvert his commitment to victory to politics. Bush’s actions showed
insurgents had misjudged the U.S. and that Bin Laden was wrong: The
U.S. was no paper tiger. Iraqis, no more attracted to al-Qaida’s
extreme vision than ordinary Afghans are to the Taliban, believed
America to be strong. Rather than make accommodations to the
terrorists, Iraqis could fight them. The Sunni tribesmen believed that
the U.S. would guard their back, and let neither al-Qaida nor Iranian
proxies run roughshod over them. For Iraqis and Afghans, it is an easy
decision to ally with militarily superior forces led by a commander-in-
chief with a clear and demonstrable will to victory.
Obama is not Bush. By declaring his commitment finite, he removes the
psychological force from his surge. NATO allies, who, because of
limits they place on their troops’ activities, are hardly dependable
on the best days, will understand that absent U.S. commitment,
furthering their own commitments is silly. Pakistan will bolster its
support for the Taliban. In Islamabad’s calculation, militant Islam is
a lesser evil than Pashtun nationalism. If Obama is preparing to cut-
and-run–which, fairly or unfairly, is how Pakistani generals will read
his speech–then strengthening links to the Taliban will make Pakistan
the dominant player in post-surge, post-withdrawal Afghanistan. The
Taliban, too, will understand that, at best, they need only lay low,
perhaps bloodying U.S. troops enough to keep the Afghanistan war
unpopular among the Hollywood, university and media sets Obama cares
about.
Lynn Sweet, writing at Politics Daily, feels the ghost of the previous
president (and his No. 2) hung over the event:
Without mentioning President Bush’s name, Obama said Afghanistan
commanders did not have the support they needed to fight the Taliban.
Obama sent more troops after becoming president. Obama said, “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.”
Did Obama “dither,” as former Vice President Dick Cheney said he did
in deciding on sending in more troops? Without mentioning Cheney,
Obama said, “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.”
Michael Signer of DemocracyArsenal feels that critics on the left
should listen the president before calling him a warmonger:
I’m struck so far in this speech by how resolutely pragmatic it is.
For the president to spend so much time and analysis on cost reveals
his situation and the deepest source of his reasoning. His citation of
Eisenhower’s recognition that you have to balance competing priorities
as president — not choose one ideology’s inducements over all others —
shows how committed he is to deliberation and to fact-based policy.
Those who are saying that Obama reminds them of Bush would do well to
keep this in mind. Yes, he may have started with 9/11 — but this
speech, in every respect, is a parade of logic and deliberation and
facts, caged in by harsh fiscal reality. No crusader here.
No thanks, says David Dayen at FireDogLake, warmonger it is: “Jon
Stewart’s going to have a field day matching up the surge speech from
Bush on Iraq with this surge speech. They are interchangeable.”
Ace of Spades shows that sarcasm is bipartisan: “Obama to Troops: I
Promise You I Will Furnish You With Every Resource You Need, So Long
As What You Need Is Reasonably-Priced and Available as a Factory-
Irregular from Marshall’s.”
“This part is cute too, coming as it does from the master of the
trillion-dollar deficit,” writes Allahpundit at Hot Air of the
president’s warnings about the cost of the war.
We can afford to ignore the price of everything else, but not the $30
billion or so a year — less than one-fifth of the deficit incurred
just in the month of October — that it’ll cost to staff Afghanistan
with new troops. Exit quotation from Niall Ferguson, writing this week
in Newsweek: “This is how empires decline. It begins with a debt
explosion. It ends with an inexorable reduction in the resources
available for the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Which is why voters are
right to worry about America’s debt crisis.”
I suppose Professor Ferguson knows of what he speaks, but I think for
one night we forgot about the economy, and focused on the 30,000 more
Americans heading off to take the fight to the enemy.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/afghanistan-as-seen-from-west-point/
chhotemianinshallah
By Bobby Ghosh / Washington Thursday, Dec. 03, 2009
ENLARGE PHOTO+
Iranian soldiers stand near a S-200 surface-to-air missile during
military exercises on Nov. 26, 2009
Ali Shayegan / AFP / Getty
President Obama referred to Pakistan no fewer than 25 times during his
West Point speech, stressing that his Afghanistan strategy cannot work
without the help of its southeastern neighbor. But he made no mention
of another neighbor, whose support was crucial in defeating the
Taliban in 2001: Iran.
Can Obama's Afghanistan plan succeed without cooperation from Tehran?
The question may seem moot, since Iran is hardly in a cooperative mood
at the moment. After a vaguely conciliatory flutter in the fall, the
government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems to have returned to
its intransigent position on uranium enrichment. Tehran's suspicion of
and hostility toward the U.S. has deepened since the course of the
turmoil that followed Ahmadinejad's disputed re-election in June.
Still, the Iranian government has in the past been able to put aside
its anti-Americanism to cooperate with the U.S. on Afghanistan. After
the 9/11 attacks, Washington and Tehran worked quietly together: Iran
had helped train, arm and finance many of the fighters and commanders
of the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance, which worked with the U.S. to
overthrow the Taliban and drive out al-Qaeda. James Dobbins, the Bush
Administration's first envoy to Afghanistan after 9/11, worked with
Iranian officials to set up the post-Taliban government. But relations
soured when President George W. Bush balked at a broader relationship
with Iran and included Tehran in his rhetorical "Axis of Evil."
(See pictures of the battle against the Taliban.)
Despite its discord with Washington, Tehran has built progressively
stronger economic and political ties with Afghanistan, not only with
its historical allies among the country's ethnic minorities — the
fellow-Shi'ite Hazaras and the Uzbeks and Tajiks — but also with the
government of President Hamid Karzai. Still, some U.S. officials
charge that the Iranians are hedging their bets and also building
bridges to some elements of the Taliban despite their longtime enmity
toward the movement. (Iran came close to war with the Taliban in 1998,
when the movement murdered nine Iranian diplomats after capturing the
northern city of Mazar e-Sharif.)
Iran experts say Tehran's broad interests in Afghanistan are the same
as Washington's. The Islamic Republic doesn't want to see a return to
chaos on its eastern flank, which would probably lead to a massive
refugee influx. As a Shi'ite state, it would see the return to power
of militant Sunni hard-liners as a setback. And Iran, which faces a
drug-addiction problem of alarming proportions, shares the U.S. desire
to curtail Afghanistan's opium trade. If anything, "Tehran stands to
lose much more than Washington if Afghanistan reverts back to an al-
Qaeda-infested, Taliban-controlled narco state," says Karim
Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace.
But shared interests may no longer be enough to get Ahmadinejad to go
along with Obama's plans in Afghanistan. "Many of the hard-liners who
are today running Iran define their foreign policy priorities as that
which is opposed to the United States," says Sadjadpour. "They may
hate the Taliban, but they just might hate the United States more."
Says Dobbins, who now heads the Rand Corp.'s International Security
and Defense Policy Center: "The best we can probably hope for is that
Iran continues to do no harm."
Tehran certainly has the tools to make trouble. The Quds Force, an
élite unit of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, was able to stir up
sectarian tension in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein by helping
arm and finance the Shi'ite militias that first fought against the
U.S.-led coalition and then conducting a campaign of violence against
Sunni Iraqis. The commander of the Quds Force, Brigadier General
Qassem Suleimani, is also credited with reining in the Shi'ite
militias in 2007 — a key factor in helping the U.S. surge strategy
succeed.
Suleimani has been active in Afghanistan as well, having visited Kabul
several times. Mark Fowler of Persia House says the Quds Force has
probably "been putting into place covert infrastructure and developing
clandestine relationships aimed both at securing Iranian interests in
Afghanistan as well as providing Iran with a capability to strike U.S.
forces in the event it is [deemed] necessary."
Iran can also use political levers against U.S. interests in Kabul.
Dobbins points out that the Northern Alliance constituencies with
which Tehran has strong connections — the Hazaras, Tajiks and Uzbeks —
are also key support bases of Abdullah Abdullah, whom Karzai beat in
this year's fraud-ridden election. "The most damaging thing that Iran
could do would be to encourage these elements ... to cease supporting
the [Karzai] government and essentially open a third front in the
current civil war," he says.
Dobbins says he doesn't think it will go that far. "This is not in
Iran's long-term interest, and they will not do it unless their
competition with the U.S. comes to dominate their policy toward
Afghanistan, which it has not to date," he says. Sadjadpour is not so
sanguine, warning, "It [wouldn't] be the first time Iran has cut off
its nose to spite its face."
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1945084,00.html?xid=rss-topstories
chhotemianinshallah
By Michael Scherer / Washington Wednesday, Dec. 02, 2009
U.S. President Barack Obama speaks to cadets at the U.S. Military
Academy in West Point, New York, on Dec. 1, 2009
Jim Young / Reuters
President Obama's first speech about Afghanistan back in March took
place in a government office building on a stage lined with
bureaucrats at 9:40 in the morning, when most Americans focus on
coffee, not TV. In its wake, polls showed that somewhere between 60%
and 70% of the country supported his plan to send more troops to fight
a seven-year-old war in a distant desert.
Just nine months later, Obama needed a bigger stage. Only 36% of
Americans now think even more troops will improve the American
position in this war, according to a recent CBS News poll, including
just 17% of Obama's Democratic base. So the President's aides needed
to upgrade the setting, interrupt the networks' prime-time lineups and
tug a bit harder at the nation's patriotic heartstrings. (Read the
full transcript of Obama's speech.)
The President gave Tuesday night's 34-minute address in front of the
coiffed, baby-faced cadets of West Point, America's proud Army leaders
in training. In a steady, grim cadence, Obama made the case for
putting yet another 30,000 Americans in harm's way. "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 one of our troops home tomorrow," he said. "This is no idle
danger, no hypothetical threat."
His appeal was packaged in emotion. He spoke of visiting wounded
warriors at Walter Reed Medical Center, and of signing condolence
letters for Americans who have died — 299 so far this year — in
Afghanistan. He evoked the wisdom of Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and
Dwight Eisenhower, and announced that Americans were "heirs to a noble
struggle for freedom," with a "resolve unwavering." But none of it
really distracted from the difficulty of the task. Less than a year
into his presidency, Obama had to come before the nation to explain
that it was losing a war. "The status quo is not sustainable," he
said, staring directly into millions of living rooms.
(See pictures of life in the National Afghan Army.)
The new Obama strategy for victory has several parts, few of them
novel. He will up the troop strength to nearly 100,000, from just
32,000 when he came into office. He will redouble efforts to support
the corrupt Afghan government, build up the so-far scattershot Afghan
security apparatus, and refocus efforts on establishing a sustainable,
non-narcotic agricultural base for the economy. He promised to begin
removing troops in July of 2011, but offered no guidance about the
pace of withdrawal or an end point for the war. "As President, I
refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means or
our interests," he said, clearly defining none of those terms.
Obama's advisers have taken to calling the latest effort a "troop
surge," an ironic term for an Administration that came to power by
rejecting President Bush's "surge" of troops into Iraq. But nothing
about Afghanistan has gone as expected. In March, his advisers spoke
of the new strategy as a break from the past. Obama had then spoken of
a "way forward." His speech Tuesday night was titled "The Way Forward
in Afghanistan and Pakistan."
Obama's aides say the President recognizes that this is not a
repetition that can go on indefinitely, and few in Washington will
escape noticing that his July 2011 target to begin withdrawing troops
is well-timed for Obama's 2012 re-election campaign. In the meantime,
Obama faces pushback from members of his own party, who have been
complaining loudly about the wisdom and cost of the decision. "The
U.S. government is already spending $3.6 billion a month on the war in
Afghanistan," said Representative Louise Slaughter of New York in a
statement after the speech. "I see no good reason for us to send
another 30,000 or more troops to Afghanistan when we have so many
pressing issues — like our economy — to deal with in this country."
Such concerns were not ones that Obama could address easily Tuesday
night, though he did acknowledge that wars suck up lots of precious
resources and promised to "work closely with Congress to address these
costs." For the moment, he is content to do what he has done best —
connect with his immediate audience. After the speech ended, he worked
the West Point cadets like a campaign rope line, smiling for many a
digital camera. The glad-handing won't help in Afghanistan, but it
looked good on television, suggesting support from a military that
will now be asked to sacrifice some more.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1944559,00.html
chhotemianinshallah
Posted by Jay Newton-Small Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 12:50 am
Congressional reaction to the 30,000-troop surge in Afganistan was as
tepid as President Obama's West Point speech. As details of the plan
leaked out throughout the day -- with more than 30 members traveling
to the White House to be personally briefed -- few spoke with passion:
no one – including Obama – mentioned human rights, the plight of a
people at war for generations or the fate of Afghani women. For many
Dems, already worried that not enough attention is being paid to the
plight of American workers (and voters), the war feels like a luxury –
something akin to global warming. Sure, there's a threat somewhere
down the line but hey, America recycles and Obama already added 17,000
troops in Afghanistan earlier this year. Surely these problems will
not blow up in the next six months like, say, 15% unemployment: why
not kick the can down the road? “Is there any way that we can delay
[paying for the surge] so that we don't stifle the recovery that seems
to be beginning now?” bemoaned Senator Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut
Independent who supports Obama's plan.
In March, for the first time in Gallup polling history, Americans by a
margin of 51% to 42% said economic growth should take priority over
environmental concerns. A September Gallup poll found jobs and the
economy the most important issue facing Americans followed by health
care and unemployment. The Iraq war ranked sixth, at the bottom of the
list. Neither Afghanistan nor global warming even made the cut, though
“dissatisfaction with government” came in fourth. A November Gallup
poll found Republicans beating Democrats in generic congressional
match ups 48% to 44% and, worse, winning Independent voters 52% to
30%. And just before Tuesday's prime time speech another Gallup poll
found Obama's approval rating on his handling of Afghanistan has
sunken to an all time low: just 35%, down 14 points from early
September.
If not for Obama's campaign promise and the Dems' eternal fear of
being labeled yet again weak on national security, you get the feeling
many Democrats (especially those facing tough races next November)
wished the problem would simply go away with the least amount of blood
and treasure spent as possible. Even Obama's closest allies hesitated
to grant their support. “President Obama asked for time to make his
decision on a new policy in Afghanistan. I am going to take some time
to think through the proposal he presented tonight,” Dick Durbin, the
senior senator from Illinois and No. 2 Senate Democrat, said in a
statement. Returning from the White House, where Obama briefed them on
his plan, Rep. Jim Clyburn, the No. 3 House Democrat, called the
meeting “civil and somber”; House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer labeled
it “sober.”
Some Democrats frowned with distaste at the spectacle of nation
building in Afghanistan. "I don't think there's a reasonable chance of
a successful strategy with regards to nation building," said Senator
Ben Cardin, a Maryland Democrat who said he was inclined to oppose the
surge. "We have a central [Afghani] government that's relatively weak
that has serious corruption issues -- so I don't think that should be
our goal, I don't think we can achieve that." Others were upset that
Obama's immense popularity abroad hadn't returned dividends in the
form of NATO troops: Obama will be lucky to get the 5,000 additional
NATO forces he's aiming for. “Why are American taxpayers and our brave
soldiers bearing almost all the burden in what should be an
international effort? Where are Europe, Russia, China and the rest of
the world?” demanded Senator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont Independent.
And while Republicans almost unilaterally support Obama's plan, the
biggest concern on both sides of the aisle was how to pay for it. The
surge will cost an estimated $30 billion a year on top of the $3.6
billion a month already being spent on the war. A few Dems hoped the
offsets would come naturally. “We should see some reduction in costs
for Iraq,” said Senator Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat. “And
hopefully the health care plan should relieve us of significant
expense.”
Realistically, Iraq will actually cost more in the short run to safely
remove tens of thousands of troops and huge amounts of equipment. And
health care reform – if passed -- doesn't kick in until 2013 with net
savings not predicted until the end of the first decade. Obama,
meanwhile, plans to have all 30,000 troops on the ground in
Afghanistan by the summer and for withdrawals -- if everything goes
ideally -- to start by July 2011. A few Republicans scoffed at the
quaint Democratic notion that the war should be offset (this is the
party, after all, that passed seven years worth of largely unpaid-for
war supplementals). “It's ironic that people start talking about
raising taxes and exacerbating the deficit when it comes to our
national security but on the stimulus people didn't think twice in
spending $1.3 trillion, including interest, in borrowed money,” said
Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican. “I mean with 43 cents to
every dollar being spent in Washington being borrowed, the Democrats
finally become fiscal hawks and worry about deficits over this -- it's
a little odd.”
And yet every Democrat -- and most Republicans -- I spoke with was
adamant that the funding, which is expected to come in a supplemental
bill early next year, should be offset. House Appropriations Committee
Chairman David Obey suggested a war tax. Senator Ben Nelson, a
Nebraska Democrat, proposed war bonds. “People invested in their
country in that fashion during World War II, it made a lot of sense
back then,” Nelson told reporters. “I don't know why it wouldn't make
sense today especially in lieu of jumping to taxes.” Perhaps the
harshest plan came from Senator John McCain, Obama's erstwhile
Republican opponent. McCain, who supports the surge, suggested cutting
non-defense discretionary spending which has ballooned nearly 15% in
the last two budgetary years – both passed under the Obama
Administration. “It's pork barrel spending, corrupt spending around
here. It's corruption around here,” McCain railed to reporters
Tuesday. “Increases over last year's appropriations bills that have
been approved by the Congress so far total to some $60 billion.”
Republicans also weren't particularly enamored with Obama's plan to
start pulling troops out in 18 months and to see the war ended within
three years. "As this surge of forces produces results in security,
governance and in capabilities of the Afghanistan Security Forces, we
must ensure that the transition of responsibilities is based on
conditions, not timelines," warned Senate Minority Leader Mitch
McConnell in a statement. And though some progressives had been
calling on Obama to include a timeline for withdrawing troops from
Afghanistan, the provision was not enough to outweigh the harm, in
progressive eyes, of such an expanded footprint. "I feel we have
accomplished a lot with regard to having a time limit and not having
it be open ended," said Senator Russ Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat
who first called for a withdrawal timeline. "What's disturbing is
there's a troop build up in the interim for not a clear purpose."
Feingold said the provision would not be enough for him to support the
legislation.
Politicians from both sides expressed frustration with the President
for yet again laying out policy in broad strokes with few details:
What does troops coming home in July 2011 mean? How many? What defines
success? How will the enterprise be paid for? “Until there's a full
debate I don't think we know exactly where individual senators will
land,” said Senator Bob Casey, a Pennsylvania Democrat who has yet to
make up his mind on whether to support the surge. “Just as the
President engaged in a thorough review, I think Congress should do the
same, and that means hearings, that means debate.” The Senate Armed
Services Committee will kick proceedings off with testimony Wednesday
morning from Defense Secretary Bob Gates, Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen. But,
with health care dominating the agenda for the foreseeable future, a
full Senate debate will have to wait. In the meantime, since Obama
doesn't need Congress's permission so much as their money, troop
deployments are expected to begin.
Comments (86)
1 Thanks, Jay. Have a leftover turkey sandwich, some brandy, and go to
sleep after that speech. (BTW, was Tues. KT's b-day?)
.
re: the one area where HCR and Afghan war overlap / collide – treating
wounded soldiers, will these (obviously) escalating costs be addressed
specifically under war funding or as part of HCR? How will Congress
address this, or try to avoid this? No doubt if both wars simply ended
now and everyone bugged out / left the region, the saved funds could
pay for HCR, alas.
.
Beyond trepidation, any fresh rumors you're hearing, Jay? thanks (and
sleep tight)
deconstructiva
December 2, 2009
at 1:31 am
Log in to Reply
1.1… I forgot to add, Jay, re: said 15% unemployment rate – it's
officially higher (a little-known govt. figure tracks it). Alas, I
experience this way-too-high rate first-hand. http://www.cnbc.com/id/34040009
deconstructiva
December 2, 2009
at 1:51 am
2 deconstructiva,
I'm sorry to hear that. What do you do? There are provisions in HCR
for wounded veterans -- more money to help them keep pace with the
wars and the higher number of casualty survivors given all the new
miraculous war field surgical techniques. And, yup, yesterday was
Karen's bday.
I'm now heading to bed. Between the tryptofan (I'm sure I spelled that
wrong) and the late hour, I'm bushed.
JNS
Jay Newton-Sma…
December 2, 2009
at 1:55 am
Log in to Reply
2.1 …thanks, Jay. I'm in architecture / engineering, but the
construction market is still a pile of rubble. A NC story lists a
possible 40% unemployment rate for the field (I don't live there but
am not surprised).
http://charlotte.bizjournals.com/charlotte/stories/2009/06/08/focus1.html
.
Public works stimulus $ is slow to kick in, sigh. The cycle will turn
around …later, once lending picks up and existing homes / malls are
bought up (or torn down). This great site tracks specific stimulus
projects in your area, hope it helps: http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/home.aspx
deconstructiva
December 2, 2009
at 2:22 am
2.2 I'm sorry to hear that too deconstructiva. I hope you find
employment in your field soon. Your posts are always so upbeat (and
funny) that I never would have guessed it. I'm truly thankful that
I've had the same job for my entire working life. I started as a teen
stay-in-school (bless those high grades that qualified me) and I'm
eligible to retire now.
sacredh
December 2, 2009
at 8:30 am
2.3 Same here decon,
.
I've been lucky enough to have hung on to my job during this storm,
but I have friends, fiends and relatives who weren't.
53_3
December 2, 2009
at 8:47 am
2.4 Thank you so much for responding to commentary, Jay Newton-Small.
stuartzechman
December 2, 2009
at 12:39 pm
2.5 Thanks sacred and 53_3. The construction fields are always
extremely volatile. Over half the staff at my last job got tossed or
quit, and other firms got hit harder. There's so much turnover now in
real estate – abandoned, foreclosed, and re-sold properties – but
there will be lots of work redeveloping these in a recovery. It's
happened before, just tougher right now.
deconstructiva
December 2, 2009
at 12:52 pm
3 A few Dems hoped the offsets would come naturally. “We should see
some reduction in costs for Iraq,” said Senator Frank Lautenberg, a
New Jersey Democrat.
.
This is stupid. We're borrowing money to pay for the war in Iraq.
.
Less money spent in Iraq does not mean more money to spend in
Afghanistan - it's all getting borrowed.
.
“People invested in their country in that fashion during World War II,
it made a lot of sense back then,” Nelson told reporters. “I don't
know why it wouldn't make sense today especially in lieu of jumping to
taxes.”
.
This is even stupider. Read Yglesias:
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/12/does-ben-nelson-know-what-war-bonds-are.php
.
And this:
.
“It's ironic that people start talking about raising taxes and
exacerbating the deficit when it comes to our national security but on
the stimulus people didn't think twice in spending $1.3 trillion,
including interest, in borrowed money,” said Senator John Cornyn, a
Texas Republican. “I mean with 43 cents to every dollar being spent in
Washington being borrowed, the Democrats finally become fiscal hawks
and worry about deficits over this -- it's a little odd.
.
is the stupidest of all.
.
I can't tell if Cornyn is that stupid, or if he's a liar, or if he's a
stupid filthy liar.
Cliff
December 2, 2009
at 2:07 am
Log in to Reply
3.1 If it doesn't help your political career, it's a cost overrun. If
it does, it's necessary to the security of our nation.
nflfoghorn
December 2, 2009
at 10:14 am
4 Now, who said that USA or Obama learnt any lessons from the wanton
bloodshed and massacres in Vietnam?
Or from Bush #43 and the horrendous war crimes in Iraq/Afghanistan/
Cuba?
Perhaps there is something to be said about brutal punishment
deterring rescidivism ..
[For it said that absolute power corrupts ...]
cfukara
December 2, 2009
at 2:24 am
5 The only comedy is all this is watching the so-called "centrists"
still whining about the Left. They get everything they want, never
compromise and yet they still have the nerve to whine about the Left
and how unreasonable they are.
Derek
December 2, 2009
at 5:24 am
Log in to Reply
5.1 Couldn't help but notice who was doing the whinning.
allthingsinana…
December 2, 2009
at 10:04 am
6 I'm discouraged by the response of both the Republicans and the
Democrats, but especially the Democrats. No mention of human rights?
Obama made it clear we're in this war because of our national security
interest. Human rights are potentially a reason to stay in the war
right now, and the Democrats know that, but Obama in effect said that
would be a luxury right now - we need to be in this for our National
security interest. I heard Maxine Waters complaining "Where's the end
to this." Sheesh. Could the Democrats not support this President for
once, or are we determined to drive up Obama's negatives so that the
Republicans make gains enough to ensure that the Democrats don't get
any of our agenda passed?
And the Republicans apparently want us to stay in this forever. After
supporting a President who diverted attention from the war in
Afghanistan for 6 years and didn't bother to pay for any of the war
efforts in real time, they're now complaining because Obama has
doubled the commitment to Afghanistan that Bush made? Talk about
dithering and weakness. Saying "whine, we can't get the job done in 18
months" is projecting weakness.
kathy
December 2, 2009
at 6:14 am
Log in to Reply
7 Do you think it's possible that some Republicans might suddenly put
two and two together and notice that the endless defecits and the
endless foreign commitments might be related?
Of course we could count on McCain to be a lying a$$ on the subject
but perhaps there are a few Conservatives who come by their values
honestly who might be able to notice the problem.
Our resources are finite and the ability of weaponry to shape the
world is limited to removing the parts that don't suit us.
Paul Dirks
December 2, 2009
at 7:09 am
Log in to Reply
7.1 "Our resources are finite and the ability of weaponry to shape the
world is limited to removing the parts that don't suit us.
.
This made my day. Swampland needs to have a Hall of Fame for
commentary.
53_3
December 2, 2009
at 8:54 am
7.2 Dirks:
.
Somebody should correct me if I'm wrong, but (theoretical)
conservatives believe that the only truly appropriate role for
government to embrace with "Do Something" passion is related to the
conduct of wars, and management of state security.
.
When McCain says that discretionary spending should be cut to nothing
before we eliminate entitlements before we even think of paying for
war, he's being consistent.
.
In their minds, the only reason borrowing is necessary for war is that
the government is spending tax money on inappropriate things like
Social Security and the Interstate highway system.
.
Once we eliminate social spending to nothing, and infrastructure
spending down to the minimum level required to guarantee the transport
or conduct of military operations and communications, there will be
more than enough money to pay for endless wars, don't you see?
.
The problem isn't that we can't pay for war, it's that we already tax
too much to pay for necessities best provided for by the private
sector, and that we're borrowing to cover the rest of the costs of
those egregious programs not compensated by the wealth creation-
stifling (and unconstitutional) tax regime.
.
It's marginally consistent...not with the founders' intent, though,
obviously.
.
What's irreconcilable in their ideology is the primacy of local
independence associated with federalism and powerful private interests
with the enormity of the centralized state necessary to "keep everyone
safe".
.
The contradictions inherent in their faux-originalism pave the road to
intellectual bankruptcy.
stuartzechman
December 2, 2009
at 2:01 pm
7.3 “In their minds, the only reason borrowing is necessary for war is
that the government is spending tax money on inappropriate things like
Social Security and the Interstate highway system.”
.
Eisenhower promoted the interstate highways and got the laws passed to
start them. Did other R's at the time oppose this?
deconstructiva
December 2, 2009
at 2:14 pm
7.4 deconstructiva:
Eisenhower promoted the interstate highways and got the laws passed to
start them. Did other R's at the time oppose this?
A correction and a clarification:
.
1) The interstate system was purportedly for defense, as it would
provide a standardized means for military planners to convoy resources
in the event of a conventional North American theater operation.
Although not solely rationalized upon the basis of defense (just post-
New Deal supporters didn't have to), it was conceived on the model of
Nazi Germany's system, and so can reasonably fit into conservatives'
notions of acceptable state endeavors.
.
2) Federal Republican representatives and officials were not modern
movement conservatives prior to the 1990's, and the pre-New Deal
Republican conservatives had been thoroughly discredited by the
success of liberal policies at that point in time. That "other R's at
the time" did or did not oppose the interstate system isn't the real
question to ponder. The question should probably be "Did the founders
of modern movement conservatism consider opposition to the interstate
highway system because of its obvious impact on markets?"
stuartzechman
December 2, 2009
at 2:57 pm
7.5 Swampland does have a hall of fame for commentary. It's called
"The Toilet".
2thirdsrocks
December 2, 2009
at 7:27 pm
8 JNS needs to go back to covering the party crashers or something.
Emotion is important but not the story here. "Tepid?" We are not
discussing bathwater. Lack of passion? How is that relevant? The big
get is a quote from... Lieberman, R-Likud, about somehow there should
be a free lunch? This is so far from a serious discussion of anything
it's ludicrous.
Again the real story is trying to clean up eight years of
mismanagement. To prevent Omar and bin Laden issuing a press release
from Kabul about how they outlasted the Great Satan. Which would not
have happened if a competent Bush administration had killed or
captured those guys in 01-02 instead of pursuing their Mesopotamian
delusions. Unbelievable.
gpanfile
December 2, 2009
at 7:54 am
Log in to Reply
8.1 " .. To prevent .. about how they outlasted the Great Satan. .."
That sounds vaguely familiar.
We couldn't let those commies overrun S Vietnam: Our civilization
depended on it. They had no air power nor tanks. We had the supremacy
- on land and airspace. More troops. There is a light at the end of
the tunnel. We had to prevent them from winning.
And they did. And the sky did not fall down. And the commies of
Vietnam have the fastest growing economy in South East Asia - and in
the Asia region, it is surpassed only by that of the commies of China.
And, of course, the vultures/plunderers of the west will not stay
away ..
" .. Which would not have happened if a competent Bush administration
had killed or captured those guys in 01-02 .."
How naive!
We captured, tortured, raped and killed many guys in Vietnam. And the
Israelis have wreaked havoc on Palestine for decades - destruction and
massacre upon destruction and massacres.
cfukara
December 2, 2009
at 12:47 pm
8.2 So, what about the administration that actually had Bin Ladin in
handcuffs and let him go? I believe he smoked glazed cigars?
2thirdsrocks
December 2, 2009
at 6:46 pm
9 So Lieberman backed the Bush surge in Iraq unconditionally but now
worries about costs when it's Obama's plan? That's playing politics
with our national security.
http://www.political-buzz.com/
Matt
December 2, 2009
at 8:13 am
10 JNS:
.
Obambi's speech was "tepid" simply because after 90 days post
McChrystal's delivery of his recommendations, there was nothing new.
Nothing.
.
McChrystal asked for 40,000 - 60,000 troops. As I had said
approximately 3 months ago when the McChrystal plan was "leaked",
Obama would go to the middle of the road, and only put in HALF of the
troops requested. In doing so he is making the biggest mistake of his
Presidency thus far.
.
America lost last night. Lost the ability to allow our troops to go
into this God forsaken place and once and finally dispose of the
enemy. Lost the ability to once and for all put al-Qaeda so far back
in their caves they would never emerge into day-light. Obama has
simply proven what I have said over and over, he does not have the
experience or judgement to run this country.
.
We, Ladies and Gentlemen, are simply doomed. The Community Organizer-
in-Chief is nothing more than a good telepromter reader, nothing more.
rustyreturns
December 2, 2009
at 8:16 am
Log in to Reply
10.1 Ahyuh! Ahyuh!
.
And Good ol' Boosh pointed the way, didn't he?
.
Or didn't...
53_3
December 2, 2009
at 8:56 am
10.2 Nothing new? So he he is going with McCrystal then? The very man
that the GOP said that we must follow, and we are doomed?
Come on Rusty, we are doomed indeed, give it a rest.
allthingsinana…
December 2, 2009
at 10:09 am
11 "We, Ladies and Gentlemen, are simply doomed"
No one has less faith in the United States than a republican.
Paul-no not th…
December 2, 2009
at 8:22 am
Log in to Reply
11.1 Even a godless, commie/socialist, anti-American (the REAL America
that is) like me keeps a pencil tree in my bedroom decorated with red,
white and blue lights lit year round. I will admit to a Bush/Cheney
dartboard that I had to throw away because it had so many holes in it
that the darts wouldn't stick anymore.
sacredh
December 2, 2009
at 8:38 am
11.2 Does it count if I fly the American flag, have two trucks with R,
W & B mudflaps, and a T-shirt with George Bush and Dick Cheney's
picture on it, with "Meet the F*ckers" under it?
53_3
December 2, 2009
at 8:50 am
11.3 No, PNNTO, I have great faith in the people of the United States
of America. It is the STUPID IDIOT you and the rest of the liberals
elected as President that I lack any confidence in to run this
country.
.
Face up to it and admit it already. Your President is nothing more
than a tele-prompter reader. Nothing more.
.
I would believe in Jeremiah Wright more than Obama, at least he has
had some military experience to fall back on. But, like Wright, Obama
HATES America and only wishes for it's total demise. That is what you
want too, isn't it PNNTO?
rustyreturns
December 2, 2009
at 8:59 am
11.4 53_3: It counts. I have a collection of anti-Bush/Cheney t-shirts
too. Most of them came from republican friends. I also have a roll of
Bush toilet paper that is near and dear to my heart. Well, maybe not
my heart.
sacredh
December 2, 2009
at 9:03 am 11.5Worse, Rusty:
.
There was this vast left wing conspiracy. You see, we "liberals"
elected him precisely because you think he's a stupid idiot!
53_3
December 2, 2009
at 9:07 am
11.6 Let me just comment Rusty, your posts, along with others from the
far right, and left, and from great on line places like TPM, Daily
Kos, Huffington Post, and from people such has Rush, Beck, Palin,
Cheney, are just plain depressing.
It seems to me that the American people are being forced to endure
such rants.
allthingsinana…
December 2, 2009
at 10:39 am
12 After great Deliberation and Agony, Pres. Obama did not just call
for the Escalation of the "struggle" but married it with a specified
end date of this Struggle through military might.
I saw in Pres. Obama a heart that bleeds for this decision for anyone
whose heart center is open and active feels the pain of this task,
yet, speaking with a Heavy Heart, I also heard in that speech the
unspoken wish or Intent that he was going to also bring Bin Laden to
justice ( the great Prize and Symbol)! I also heard the great Urgency
he feels to bind up all loose nuclear threats and to prevent them from
getting into those hands within Afghanistan and Pakistan which might
annihilate the world as we know it. He has not made this this "call to
arms" for Oil or for profit based upon a lie but a heartfelt desire to
keep safe the people in the world, in the binding up of these nuclear
threats to the world by this faction which he knows is still out there
plotting to do harm! That in this way we are Standing up for Peace and
that somehow we must go into Hell for a Heavenly cause.
I heard him also say to the Military Industrial Complex Machine that
there will be an end date, and that it will not be open-ended, but
that the battle for peace might call for other strategic ways to get
to this goal -- that giving the benefit of the doubt to his generals
-- he will try their way (since they are so much more knowledgeable
about military than him).
As, he spoke about true security from a world without nuclear weapons
(his real true goal), he also spoke about the need to unite with the
world to accomplish this task because in truth, terror and nuclear
weapons is a world problem! And finally, he called us to the time
after 9/11, when we were all united but got deviated from the course,
but to return to that Unity of purpose, one more time.... and that if
he is lucky, he will bring home the Prize, Bin Ladin, break the back
of this threat, and then for the weary and battle scarred-soldiers
they can look onward and say, well done -- yet, there's no place like
home, there's no place like home!
Let us trust " that there is a goodness in all of life that cannot
even be eliminated by thoughts that temporarily cause you to believe
that negativity is the underlying reality of human life on earth...
" (1) Let us call on that goodness to illuminate our way forward
towards that peace and goodwill and seal the door where evil dwells.
1. Ron Scolastico. Doorway to the Soul
bacalove
December 2, 2009
at 8:32 am
12.1 Thank you for a great post.
sacredh
December 2, 2009
at 8:41 am
12.2 Great post, I heard exactly what you wrote. seems to me there is
more of a war going on between the Democrats and Republicans. How
shamefull. No war is good. Setting deadlines can change.....How many
of the negative bloggers have a family member who they lost in a war
or were in war. Are you really saying you would die for your county?
Call me any nasty name, but honestly I like my life and would rather
give back to my community than die for it.
noaj39
December 2, 2009
at 10:07 am
12.3 "Let us call on that goodness to illuminate our way forward
towards that peace and goodwill and seal the door where evil dwells."
And now, when I snap my fingers you will wake up from your trance.
SNAP!
cfukara
December 2, 2009
at 12:56 pm
12.4 Let's all join in a rousing, soulful chorus of Kum bae ya!
2thirdsrocks
December 2, 2009
at 7:04 pm
13 okay...seriously? After 8 years of not caring about how much the
wars were costing us...NOW the republicans are screaming about the
cost? Where the hell have they been? Are they really that stupid? Or
rather, do they really think the people are stupid enough to forget
about those years, and only remember what talking point they come up
with now? Give me a break.
deckerfamily03
December 2, 2009
at 8:46 am
14 "But in this case, the public was more disturbed than entertained.
Indeed, one could see the phenomenon in a number of places in recent
weeks: Obama's magic no longer works. The allure of his words has
grown weaker."
Der Speigel
Yes the world likes us and after the election haze has passed the
world is figuring out Obama rather quickly, that voting present was
his only strength He is an empty suit, indeed.
freeinpa
December 2, 2009
at 9:01 am
15 JNS: "...no one – including Obama – mentioned human rights, the
plight of a people at war for generations..."
OBAMA: "The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades.
They've 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."
Let's see, "human rights"--check; "plight of people at war for
generations"--check.
Helps if you read the piece before you blabber on about it, Ms. Small.
conversets
December 2, 2009
at 9:44 am
16 I admit that the speech sounded like Dubya in blackface.
Nonetheless what's done is done. We can only hold the president's feet
to the fire when he says the mission will take (roughly) 18 months.
The alternative - to turn tail and run now - is unacceptable. There's
probably going to be a US presence of some sort in the region for many
years to come, IF we still haven't captured/killed those who we
should've gotten in the first place.
And when will we tell Pakistan to either step up the hunt for
terrorists or we'll do it for them?
nflfoghorn
December 2, 2009
at 10:25 am
16.1 The alternative - to turn tail and run now - is unacceptable.
.
Leaving now would be quite acceptable, and smart.
pintortwo
December 2, 2009
at 11:03 am
17 It's a sad day. This country needed a progressive leader. We needed
someone to lead us out of Iraq and Afghanistan post-haste, and to cut
the military budget significantly. We needed someone to put some of
that money into building schools, bridges and highways; into
developing clean energy, alternate fuel and technology ($700 billion
can go a long way). Someone to restrict (eliminate?) campaign
contributions and lobbying. Someone to enforce antitrust laws and
regulate the banking, insurance and commodity trading industries. But
we got Obama- perhaps worse that his predecessor. At least with Bush
it was obvious that he had given the Office over to the hawks, elites
and radicals; and we could mount an opposition. Now, the opposition
(to Obama) is likely be more wingnutty then ever before. And I fear
that the “cure” will be worse than the disease.
pintortwo
December 2, 2009
at 11:05 am
17.1 Don't worry the phony liberal will be back in a few years asking
for your vote and money.
Derek
December 2, 2009
at 11:07 am
17.2 What "phony liberal" are you talking about?
Obama is doing exactly what he said he would do during the campaign:
wind down the war in Iraq and step-up the effort in Afghanistan and
Pakistan to go after al Queda.
Helps if you pay attention occasionally.
conversets
December 2, 2009
at 11:26 am
17.3 That's OK; giving him money and votes would still be preferable
to a return to control by the incompetent fearmongers, corporate
whores and theocrats.
FlownOver
December 2, 2009
at 11:30 am
17.4 So do you *want* terrorists to run around free? Or will they
switch allegiances and all turn into good guys?
nflfoghorn
December 2, 2009
at 12:10 pm
17.5 So do you *want* terrorists to run around free?
.
Is that a *rhetorical* question?
stuartzechman
December 2, 2009
at 3:00 pm
17.6" What "phony liberal" are you talking about?
Obama is doing exactly what he said he would do during the campaign:
wind down the war in Iraq and step-up the effort in Afghanistan and
Pakistan to go after al Queda.
Helps if you pay attention occasionally.".
When does the wind down in Iraq begin?
Derek
December 2, 2009
at 9:45 pm
18 And BTW, the smartest thing mentioned here was by Senator Cardin:.
.
"I don't think there's a reasonable chance of a successful strategy
with regards to nation building. We have a central [Afghani]
government that's relatively weak that has serious corruption issues
-- so I don't think that should be our goal, I don't think we can
achieve that.".
.
It is very unlikely that we would be able to build a strong central
government in Afghanistan; it's foolish to think that way. And what
would we gain if we did? Most likely another government that doesn't
want us to interfere and probably won't like us. Democratic governance
does not equal pro-US.
pintortwo
December 2, 2009
at 11:33 am
19 Strange the muted reaction in the MSM over Chris Matthews' "enemy
camp" comment.
.
Rush Limbaugh has gotten pilloried in here by Swampland reporters, yet
none have a comment on Chris Matthews? Interesting. The "enemy camp"
comment is offensive.
spob
December 2, 2009
at 11:52 am
19.1 The Swampland blog is hardly Mainstream Media and Limbaugh has
earned every break he doesn't get. Further, I don't expect
progressives to circle the wagons to protect Matthews; most don't
consider him one of their own. I'd be happy to see him wallow in his
stupidity.
.
Conspiracy? No.
pintortwo
December 2, 2009
at 12:04 pm
19.2 Obviously, Chris Tingles gets a "Moron Go Free" Pass. While it is
disgusting, it does provide a window into the true thoughts of
liberals. Every now and then a kernal of truth is leaked between the
mountain of lies . Most Swamplanders won't pillory Mathews but will
defend him. Why? They despise the military and and what it stands for
in our history.
What you will get is "don't question their patriotism". That is
correct, you can't question what they don't have. To the looney left,
patriotism is a punch line.
What the left can't understand is why the mere election of Obama's
itself did not end the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The delay in his
decision was him trying to vote present and not make any decision.
freeinpa
December 2, 2009
at 12:08 pm
19.3 Which Limbaugh comments have you found offensive?
rmrd
December 2, 2009
at 12:10 pm
19.4 Agreed. For what it's worth, Matthews got a scolding about it
from Bill Press on his radio show.
nflfoghorn
December 2, 2009
at 12:13 pm
19.5 Media Matters (liberal, right?) has posted the "enemy state"
broadcast and opened it to comment. Unsurprisingly, most feel Matthews
is a buffoon, take him to task and say he is not a liberal.
.
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200912010043
pintortwo
December 2, 2009
at 12:22 pm
19.6 "Strange the muted reaction in the MSM over Chris Matthews'
"enemy camp" comment."
.
Spob-I am really not sure why you find this strange. Let's be honest
what this is really about. Tweety after all still has several shows
not just Hard Ball, the reporters and their bosses in the mainstream
media love to appear on. Tweety is an entrenched member of the village
so don't hold your breath for the pilloring of Tweety. No matter how
consipiracy ridden, sexist or racist or just plain ignorant his
leering and comments become.
.
As for Rush I really don't think a magazine that gave white washing
treatment to Ann Coulter and then followed with the same type of
treatment for Glenn Beck is going to take on Rush. Not a chance.
gysgt213
December 2, 2009
at 12:41 pm
19.7 It would be interesting to hear from the Swampland reporters why
Rush got posts here, but Matthews' really offensive comment gets nada.
spob
December 2, 2009
at 2:30 pm
20 So it was Republicans (and their perpetual enablers the centrist
Democratics) who dropped the ball in Afghanistan and borrowed $1T in
order to blow up Iraq for no reason whatsoever, and now they are
worried about $30B to clean up their own mess? F*ck them.
Art Pepper
December 2, 2009
at 11:58 am
20.1 HA! (Check out 3.1.)
nflfoghorn
December 2, 2009
at 12:16 pm
21 I ddn`t read past your first ridiculous statement .President
Obama`s statement was anything but tepid. Congress has every reason to
debate and question it, but from the little I heard , the questioning
is anything but tepid.
gwbc
December 2, 2009
at 12:36 pm
22 Perhaps if he had promised them a pony.
shepherdwong
December 2, 2009
at 12:43 pm
23 "Obama would go to the middle of the road, and only put in HALF of
the troops requested. In doing so he is making the biggest mistake of
his Presidency thus far."
.
Barack Obama has committed more troops to the Afghanistan war in his
first year as president than President Cheney did in the entire eight
years of the Bush Debacle. @sshole.
shepherdwong
December 2, 2009
at 12:46 pm
24 the Dems' eternal fear of being labeled yet again weak on national
security
.
Labeled by whom?
stuartzechman
December 2, 2009
at 12:49 pm
24.1 Um-that is easy who likes labels the most? The press!
gysgt213
December 2, 2009
at 12:53 pm
24.2 …I'll bet the R's are printing labels too to make themselves look
tougher …even if OBL escaped from Tora Bora under W's watch, but I
digress.
deconstructiva
December 2, 2009
at 1:01 pm
24.3 Seriously. Obam's being called weak even as we speak for
committing more troops to Afghanistan in his first year than the
previous Republican administration managed to put into theater in
eight years of war. Try looking up thread.
shepherdwong
December 2, 2009
at 1:04 pm
24.4 Pretty much anybody who speaks to the issue including most
Democrats
freeinpa
December 2, 2009
at 1:28 pm 25So do you *want* terrorists to run around free? Or will
they switch allegiances and all turn into good guys?
@ nfl 17.4.
.
(T)he al Qaeda presence (in Afghanistan) is very diminished. The
maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country. No bases.
No ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies.
.
-General James Jones.
.
The attackers who carried out 9/11 succeeded through a lot of luck and
a mixture of complacency and incompetence on the part of America's
intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Terrorism did not threaten
our form of government or our way of life then and does not do so now.
An assessment by France's highly regarded Paris Institute of Political
Studies last week suggested that Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda has likely
been reduced to a core group of eight to ten terrorists who are on the
run more often than not.
.
-former CIA agent Philip Giraldi
..
Iranians don't have a nuclear weapons program. They have never invaded
another country. Their conventional forces have limited capability.
Their army has never deployed more than about ten miles from its
border, and that was only during the eight-year war with Iraq when
Saddam Hussein invaded them. Their navy is a coast guard and their air
force is a junkyard. Their defense budget is less than one percent of
ours. Iran is a pismire.
.
-US Navy Commander Jeff Huber.
.
Our folly in Af, Pak, Iraq, Iran has nothing to do with any threat to
the United States. Atta was a Saudi educated in Germany and living in
the US, bin Laden is the son of a wealthy Saudi family- terrorists
don't need sanctuary in Afghanistan to plan an attack, the blackberry
in their pockets will do very nicely. We do not need to be there.
.
The oil-for-US dollar monopoly has become the paramount American
virtue. Elites have chosen to value oil and military spending over the
lives of our soldiers and those living in the region; over
infrastructure, jobs, technology, debt and clean fuel. This is
economics, not national security. War is our fiscal policy. Shame on
us.
pintortwo
December 2, 2009
at 12:55 pm
25.1 Excellent comment.
" .. The maximum estimate is less than 100 (Al-Queda) operating in the
country. .."
95,000(?) of the USA against 100 of the enemy.
Can it be that the enemy is THAT good - or should we say that a
duplicitous POTUS is not telling us something?
" The oil-for-US dollar monopoly has become the paramount American
virtue. .oil and military spending .. This is economics, not national
security. War is our fiscal policy.
cfukara
December 2, 2009
at 3:43 pm
25.2 In eighteen months time, the numbers will be looking like 250 Al
- Qaeda and 120,000 US troops. What happens then?
abdullah69
December 2, 2009
at 7:03 pm 25.3Then?
AH, I can imagine it: A scene right out of McNamara playbook of the
the 60s:
We cannot fail now.
Commit more troops. There is light at the end of the tunnel.
If Afghanistan fails, Al-Queda will overrun Iraq. And nuclear-armed
Pakistan. And the Saudi Arabia. Remember the "domino theory".
The very foundation of the western civilization is threatened. If we
fail now, Americans will wake up to a terrorist in every garage and
Islamic Sharia in the courts. Would you rather have mushroom clouds
blooming and chiming "Allah Akhbar!" all over our USA!
(At this point the Israelis will be chiming in with screechy
proclamations of their self-declared special bond with the cursed
gentiles of USA (! !) - to whine that their parasitic, belligerent,
roguish existence is threatened. "So?" Cheney may chime in.)
26 Is anybody excited? Well, maybe Joe Klein is? President Obama's
problem is that he is all talk and hot air. He talks and talks ... and
talks but I am yet to hear him saying something with any substance.
Ike Jakson
December 2, 2009
at 1:27 pm
Log in to Reply
27 I guess it would be interesting for the Swampland reporters to
weigh in--why the silence on Matthews' appalling comment?
spob
December 2, 2009
at 2:19 pm
28So, we slaughter millions of turkeys and enjoy our Thanksgiving with
happy family.
How many cave-dwellers were slaughtered over the Thanksgiving? And how
many were berieved over the past year?
We - especially the evangelical christians - really don't care about
the other guy's grief or sorrow.
..
30,000 more troops. Why not 1,000,000 more?
What are the projections and expectations for the extra troops. How
many more Afghanis will die before the hostilities die down?
After all kids, women and men were slaughtered in a village in
Vietnam, it was said by the American executioner-soldier that the
village had to be "sanitized" so as to save it from communism.
Are we intent on 'sanitizing' Afghanistan?
And Iraq?
And Palestine?
And Pakistan?
(And Zimbabwe? ..... And Nigeria? ..)
Were the multitudes of mostly civilian Afghani, Iraqi and Pakistani
responsible for any grudges we have?
Surge. What have those mostly innocent cave-dwellers the surge is
going to kill do to us?
--------------
cfukara
December 2, 2009
at 2:54 pm
28.1 Amy (in the first sentence):
.
"...few spoke with passion: no one – including Obama – mentioned human
rights, the plight of a people at war for generations or the fate of
Afghani women."
.
The fact is, the American people stopped caring much (if they ever
did) about "collateral damage" with the firebombings of Dresden and
Tokyo and the nuclear bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, more than
fifty years ago. Once the killing of non-combatants, either willfully
of through careless disregard, could be justified strictly on the
basis of saving the lives of soldiers, we stopped being the moral
nation you desire. Sorry.
shepherdwong
December 2, 2009
at 3:52 pm
28.2 Apologies, that was Jay Newton-Small who went right to the heart
of the matter.
shepherdwong
December 2, 2009
at 3:54 pm
29 conversets: " .. Helps if you read the piece before you blabber on
about it, Ms. Small. .. "
I am tempted to assume that you are wilfully hypocritical.
It helps if you THINK about the deadly, duplicitous pretensions of a
siren's song before you enthuse about it.
"human rights"--check our track record of human rights violations, and
the wilful accommodation of same, with regard to
- USA's renditions and torture;
- war crimes in the Middle East(Al Haditha, Mosul, Baghram, Abu
Ghraib, Afghanistan, N Pakistan ..);
- support of regimes that commit horrendous human rights violations
(Israel, Morrocco, Yemen, apartheid South Africa);
- evils and human toll of current and historical institutionalized
racism in USA;
- and the imposition of gratuitous, satanic economic sanctions which
destroy nations and kill multitudes by starvation and opportunistic
diseases (current Iran, Saddam's Iraq, current Zimbabwe, Castro's
Cuba).
...piety check:
"Terror"? Guess who has more kids in Iraq/Afghanistan cowering in
their caves in terror - straining to hear the sound of that missile,
drone or helicopter which heralds the last moments of their lives?
"war"? Who is responsible for more deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan? (Or,
indirectly, Palestine?)
....
Islamists? Being mostly christian nation like ours does not save the
mostly christian African nations like Zimbabwe and South Africa from
our murderous imposition.
"plight of people at war for generations"--check the part played by
the USA in fanning generations of unrest (Iraq, Iran, Cuba, Chile,
Zimbabwe) and initiating or escalating decades of "regime change" wars
while pursuing our imperial foreign policy objectives around the
world.
And indeed, it often happens that the natives of the lands are left as
poor or even poorer after our overt and/or covert interventions.
(Haiti, Grenada, Nicaragua, Panama, Cuba, Iraq, Somalia.. (and
Kenya!))
Indeed, we are on a crusade of waging a scotched-earth, essentially
slaughter-the-innocent-cave-dweller war in Afghanistan in much the
same way that the Soviets got there. And they had their lofty rhetoric
too.
How about S Vietnam? Wars had been raging on and off in that land for
centuries. So, after the French had their turn at blood letting, it
was our turn at the waging war accompanied by the necessary psyche ops
of soaring rhetoric about how godly we are and how evil the commies
are.
'Change'?
So far, you may agree that Pres Obama administration has turned out as
expected - all soaring rhetoric (of the "words just words" ilk) but
still as singularly predatory and viciously imperial - in pursuit of
jewish and western/white colonial, predatory exceptionalism - as the
previous administration of the irish-british presidents of USA.
cfukara
December 2, 2009
at 2:55 pm
29.1 " .. initiating or escalating decades of "regime change" wars .."
And the we hypocritically bemoan the lack of freedoms in the lands we
thus destabilize.
No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual
warfare.
— James Madison, Political Observations, 1795
.. the politically potent AARP rode to the rescue of Democrats on
Wednesday, supporting $460 billion in Medicare cuts to help pay for
landmark health insurance legislation.
50,000,0000 starving and/or diseased Americans without sufficient
health insurance - in "the richest and freest nation in history" -
according to Dick "the measly-hearted" Cheney. We quibble that we
don't have the funds to cover them.
What are we missing here?
Suppose:
1) We commit to winding down the adventurism in Afghanistan within a
year. [After all, what do we expect to achieve in 3 years - other than
more cave-dwelling kids and mothers dead and old civilizations
destroyed for ever - Mayan-style?]
How much do we recover?
2) Is killing some Afghani, Iraqi and African kids more important to
us than the health of American citizens?
Suppose we cut our military expenditure by half. How much do we
recover for the "we, the people" not covered in the current HCR bill?
Over $600 Billion.
Dangerous? No. Even after such a cut, we will be outspending the next
highest spenders (China + France + UK + Russia - COMBINED.
[While we are at it, then let us suggest cutting spending by 10! Even
after that, we will be spending about as much as the next highest
spender, China. But we will still have the advantage in size of
economy, advanced technology, number of nuclear warheads and chemical/
biological warfare stockpiles. What are the repercussions of going to
war with China or France or UK or Russia? Asymptotically dire for
humans and thus not worth worrying about.]
cfukara
December 2, 2009
at 7:23 pm 29.2" .. Over $600 Billion."
Make that "Over $300 Billion."
cfukara
December 2, 2009
at 9:05 pm
30 [...] very wary. The economy has taken its toll, making the wars,
however seemed legitimate in 2001, are luxury items today. Obama
recognized this sentiment during the speech when he mentioned that the
only [...]
Something gott…
December 2, 2009
at 6:33 pm
31 "Where are Europe, Russia, China and the rest of the world?"
http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/05/11/the-gas-must-flow/
"In a report to be released today, energy economist John Foster says
the pipeline is part of a wider struggle by the United States to
counter the influence of Russia and Iran over energy trade in the
region.
The so-called Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline has
strong support from Washington because the U.S. government is eager to
block a competing pipeline that would bring gas to Pakistan and India
from Iran.
The TAPI pipeline would also diminish Russia's dominance of Central
Asian energy exports."
michaelfury
December 2, 2009
at 8:15 pm
32 The US spends millions of dollars each year on military spending,
but is unconcerned that military strategies are locked into the
nineteenth century philosophy of "invade and occupy" which was
discredited by practically every twentieth century conflict, Vietnam
included.
For the US to commit more ground troops and hope the politics work out
is just another repeat of the Vietnam experience.
The US has two options - A) to follow the British experience in Malaya
in the middle of the last century when the Communist insurgency was
suppressed through the intelligent but widespread use of special
forces,
or B) nuke Waziristan. Not only would this certainly eliminate Al -
Qaeda for the lifetimes of most sitting senators, but would scare the
poop out of Iran, Pakistan, and every other nuclear state in the
region including Israel. A few dead Pakistanis and Afghans for peace
in the Middle East? Could be worth it.
Domestically, it would destroy Republican opposition to the
administration. It would shake up the Democrats too, but would that be
such a bad thing?
abdullah69
December 2, 2009
at 8:58 pm
33 [...] presence in the country, combined with ah planned drawdown
after 18 months. Like many compromises, Obama's position is likely to
please no one. Critics on the right assert that we must do whatever is
necessary to win in Afghanistan, [...]
Where are the…
December 3, 2009
at 12:48 pm
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/12/02/congresss-tepid-reaction-to-obamas-afghanistan-plan/
chhotemianinshallah
December 3, 2009 9:56 a.m. EST
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Fawaz Gerges: Obama crazy to think U.S. can transfer security to
Afghanistan in two years
Gerges: Nation practically dysfunctional; each tribe and sect fends
for its own
It's complex and tribal: Al Qaeda plays a small role in Taliban
insurgency, he writes
Gerges: War will empower weakened al Qaeda, which numbers only 100 in
Afghanistan
Editor's note: Fawaz A. Gerges is a professor of Middle Eastern
politics and international relations at the London School of Economics
and Political Science, London University. He has taught at Oxford,
Harvard and Columbia, and is a research scholar at Princeton and holds
the Christian A. Johnson Chair in Middle Eastern Studies and
International Affairs at Sarah Lawrence College. Among his books is
"The Far Enemy: Why Jihad Went Global" (Cambridge University Press,
2005).
London, England (CNN) -- President Obama's decision to deploy an
additional 30,000 soldiers and Marines to Afghanistan by early 2010
was not a surprise. In Obama's War Cabinet meetings, the question was
not whether to send more troops but how many.
Obama's second major military escalation of the conflict this year,
the largest single U.S. deployment since the 2003 invasion of Iraq,
will bring the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan to almost 100,000.
There are also 50,000 NATO troops stationed in the country.
Notably, there will be as many troops in Afghanistan as in Iraq at the
height of the war between 2003 and 2008.
In his televised speech Tuesday, Obama stressed the limits of the
American presence in Afghanistan and set a goal of starting to bring
forces home after only 18 months.
"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," he said.
If Obama thinks he will be able to transfer security to an Afghan
central authority in two years, he will be in for a rude awakening.
That tall order requires more than a decade of nation- and institution-
building.
Does the presence of 100 al Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan justify
the new military escalation?
--Fawaz Gerges, professor of Middle Eastern politics
By pressing that his strategy has an endgame starting in July 2011 and
that he will not pass this military campaign on to the next president,
this conflict has the possibility of outlasting his administration,
just like Iraq has outlasted his predecessor's.
Obviously, the Obama foreign policy does not recognize the gravity of
the institutional, societal and security crisis in Afghanistan.
It is a broken country. More than 30 years of war and political
turmoil have wrecked most of the ties that bind a community together.
Civil society is deeply fragmented and splintered along tribal and
sectarian lines. Sadly, Afghanistan is a social and institutional
wasteland. Each tribe and sect fends for its own, with no concept of
the collective good.
President Hamid Karzai's government is an empty shell whose authority
does not extend beyond the outskirts of the capital, Kabul. Its claim
to fame is that it is listed by Transparency International as second
only to Somalia in levels of perceived corruption worldwide in 2009.
U.S. strategy includes plans to build up the Afghan army to 134,000
troops in 2010 and increase the size of the police force so that the
transfer of authority can begin in summer 2011.
It is mind-boggling that the Obama administration intends to begin to
secure Afghanistan, a huge, complex and volatile country, with 134,000
troops or even double that number.
At the moment, only one of Afghanistan's 34 provinces is entirely
under Afghan military and police control. Empowering the Afghans
themselves will take considerable time, space, setbacks and
resources.
The task of building a professional Afghan army is huge in light of
its frighteningly high level of desertions. The Afghan National Army
lost a fourth of its personnel during the year ending in September,
the Asia Times reports, citing U.S. Defense Department figures. As to
reforming the hopelessly corrupt police force, that is a Herculean
challenge.
Regardless of how powerful they are, the United States and NATO do not
possess a magic wand to mold and shape local Afghan life in their
image, a lesson, one would have thought, allies painfully and
expensively learned in Iraq's blood-soaked shifting sands.
More alarming, Obama has not been forthcoming with the American people
about the diminishing nature of the threat posed by al Qaeda Central
and like-minded factions.
He has also bought the false, technical claim that the Afghan Taliban
and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda function more or less as a single
entity. The Obama foreign policy views the Taliban, regressive and
brutal at home, through the lens of al Qaeda and the global war on
terror.
While at the height of power in the late 1990s, al Qaeda was made up
of about 3,000 to 4,000 terrorists. Today, bin Laden's ranks are down
to about 400 to 500. According to the most credible intelligence
estimates, perhaps 100 al Qaeda operatives are in Afghanistan and
another 300 in neighboring Pakistan.
Does the presence of 100 al Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan, lethal as
they are, justify the new military escalation and its inherent risks
and costs? Shouldn't the U.S. public be fully informed about the
changing nature of the threat before plunging into another military
venture?
Yes, there are operational links between the Taliban in Afghanistan
and some al Qaeda operatives who provide training and expertise in
roadside bombs.
The Taliban have recently deployed al Qaeda-style suicide attacks with
deadly effect. But few Taliban chiefs publicly boast about their
connection with bin Laden's men.
Notwithstanding, it would be dangerously misleading to lump al Qaeda,
a transnational, borderless jihadist group waging a worldwide
terrorist campaign, with the Taliban, a local armed insurgency whose
focus has always been the home front. U.S. authorities have never
accused the Afghan Taliban of carrying out strikes or attacks outside
Afghanistan.
In the past year, the Afghan Taliban nearly quadrupled their numbers,
going from 7,000 to more than 25,000, according to U.S. intelligence,
and have gained more followers from within the Pashtun tribes, who are
a majority in Afghanistan.
The struggle in Afghanistan is much broader and more complex than al
Qaeda pitting Pashtun tribesmen against what they see as a foreign
threat to their identity and way of life.
The war has drawn a few hundred militant Islamists, not only al Qaeda
types, from Kashmir, the Arab world and even Central Asia. In
Afghanistan, al Qaeda is a very small element in this coalition, a
side effect, a parasite nourished on lawlessness and instability.
Surely, 100 al Qaeda operatives cannot drive and lead a potent
insurgency composed of tens of thousands of fighters and several local
groups with their own differing agendas.
A close reading of Obama's speech and statements by his senior
advisers shows conceptual misunderstanding and confusion about the
Afghan and Pakistani theaters. They interchangeably use Afghanistan
and Pakistan, while in reality they refer to Pakistan.
One gets the impression that the "surge" should be in Pakistan, where
al Qaeda rank-and-file is based, rather than Afghanistan.
If the new "surge" in Afghanistan is designed to kill the remnants of
bin Laden's al Qaeda, it might prove to be another catastrophic
analytical failure.
Military escalation provides motivation and life support for a
parasite group like al Qaeda. It will be empowered by a stepped-up
war.
A convincing argument could be made that ridding the Pashtun tribal
lands of al Qaeda and other foreign extremists demands a region-wide
political settlement that addresses the legitimate grievances of the
tribal communities as well as the geo-strategic concerns of Pakistan,
Iran and India.
One hopes that Obama's desperate and risky move would succeed in
creating favorable conditions for a political settlement in
Afghanistan that leads to the formation of a durable representative
and legitimate government.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Fawaz A.
Gerges.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/12/02/gerges.impossible.mission/
chhotemianinshallah
www.chinaview.cn 2009-12-04 05:17:26
·Obama's Afghan decision have certain flexibility, Gates suggested
Thursday.
·Gates told lawmakers that the additional deployments could be
increased to 33,000.
·He also said the July 2011 date are definite.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 (Xinhua) -- Both troops number and drawdown
date in U.S. President Barack Obama's Afghan decision have certain
flexibility, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates suggested Thursday.
U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, (R), and U.S. Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton (L) testify at a Senate Foreign Relations
Committee Capitol Hill in Washington, Dec. 3, 2009. (Xinhua/Reuters
Photo)
Photo Gallery>>>
Testifying before a Senate committee on Obama's decision to send
30,000 more troops to Afghanistan and start drawdown of U.S. troops
level there in July 2011, Gates told lawmakers that the additional
deployments could be increased to 33,000 if frontline commanders want
more medics or technicians to detect roadside bombs.
He also said the July 2011 date are definite, yet flexible enough
to give American military commanders the discretion they need.
"The pace, the size of the drawdown, is going to be determined in
a responsible manner based on the conditions that exist at the time,"
he said.
"It is not contradictory to set a date certain, yet to condition
it on the reality that we confront at that time," Gates added.
Obama delivered a prime-time speech to the nation on Tuesday
night, laying out a strategy which calls for sending 30,000 more
troops to Afghanistan and starting pulling out U.S. forces in
July2011.
As the public is turning negative toward the Afghan war and his
fellow Democrats are increasingly vocal in their opposition to a troop
buildup in Afghanistan, the decision is regarded as one of the most
critical issues to shape his presidency and will be a tough-sell.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-12/04/content_12585067.htm
chhotemianinshallah
www.chinaview.cn 2009-12-03 00:37:47
STOCKHOLM, Dec. 2 (Xinhua) -- The European Union (EU) expressed
its welcome on Wednesday to the announcement by President Barack Obama
that the United States will further reinforce its engagement in
Afghanistan.
"This announcement comes at a time of renewed focus and engagement
by the international community as a whole. The European Union stands
ready to work closely with the United States and other parts of the
international community in addressing the challenges in Afghanistan,"
Sweden, the current rotating presidency of EU, said in a statement.
The 27-nation bloc reiterated its strategic partnership with the
United States in the region.
It further stressed the importance of close and strategic
coordination of the international efforts, under the lead of the
United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan.
The EU remains determined to enhance and improve its engagement in
Afghanistan in accordance with the Plan for Strengthened EU Action in
Afghanistan and Pakistan, adopted by the Council of the European Union
on 27 October 2009, the statement added.
After months of review, the Obama administration on Tuesday
renewed its strategy for Afghanistan by sending 30,000 additional
troops to the country in a decisive war against the al-Qaida network
and extremists.
Editor: Yan
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-12/03/content_12578402.htm
chhotemianinshallah
www.chinaview.cn 2009-12-02 22:16:17
SEOUL, Dec. 2 (Xinhua) -- South Korea is planning to dispatch near
350 soldiers to Afghanistan in mid 2010 to serve a two-and-a-half year
mission, local media reported Wednesday.
The government and the ruling Grand National Party (GNP) agreed at
a policy coordination meeting to present a motion to the National
Assembly about the dispatch of 340-350 troops to the war-torn Central
Asian country next July for a two-and-a-half years, the country's
Yonhap News Agency quoted officials as saying.
The decision, which still need the National Assembly's approval,
was made as the Obama administration renewed its strategy for
Afghanistan earlier in the day by sending 30,000 additional troops to
the country.
The South Korean government in October announced its additional
support program for Afghanistan, including the dispatch of troops for
a reconstruction protection mission, in order to more actively take
part in the international efforts for supporting Afghanistan's
stabilization and reconstruction operations.
Currently South Korea has a 25-member civilian medical team at a
U.S. base in Afghanistan.
However it is uncertain whether the plan will get the National
Assembly's ratification, according to the local media.
South Korea's officials and politicians are at odds over the troop
dispatch issue. The opposition parties, led by the main opposition
Democratic Party, firmly opposed to dispatching troops to
Afghanistan.
South Korea withdrew more than 200 military medics and engineers
from Afghanistan in 2007 after dozens of South Korean Christian
missionaries were kidnapped there. Two of them were killed.
Earlier in the day, South Korea expressed support for the U.S.
government's new strategy in Afghanistan.
The Foreign Ministry spokesman said the Obama administration's
move is expected to make significant contributions to the efforts made
by the Afghan people and the international community for the
reconstruction of the war-torn country.
"The government supports the U.S. decision to expand its Afghan
aid efforts, including troop reinforcements, in a bid to accelerate
stabilization and reconstruction there," foreign ministry spokesman
Moon Tae-young said in a statement.
Editor: Yan
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-12/02/content_12575476.htm
bademiyansubhanallah
Withdrawal
In a second day of testimony on Capitol Hill, key Obama administration
officials said Thursday that the July 2011 date President Barack Obama
set for beginning a drawdown of U.S. forces from Afghanistan will
depend on the progress made.
Dan Robinson | Capitol Hill 03 December 2009
Photo: AP
From left: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary
Robert Gates, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Navy
Admiral Michael Mullen testifying in Congress, 02 Dec 2009
"It is not an arbitrary date. It is the third summer, if you will,
that the [U.S.] Marines will be in [Afghanistan's southern] Helmand
[province]," Admiral Mullen said.
In a second day of testimony on Capitol Hill, key Obama administration
officials said Thursday that the July 2011 date President Barack Obama
set for beginning a drawdown of U.S. forces from Afghanistan will
depend on the progress made. Defense Secretary Robert Gates,
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and military Joint Chiefs of Staff
Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen testified before two congressional
panels.
In his Tuesday night speech, President Obama stressed the need to give
Afghanistan's government, army and police time to build up their
ability to defend against Taliban advances.
The top officials who will implement that strategy say they believe
the president is sincere in his intention to stick to the July 2011
date.
But they also say that conditions - including security in key
provinces, the pace of training and equipping Afghan forces, and
Afghan President Hamid Karzai's ability to eliminate corruption and
restore credibility - will determine how rapidly a U.S. withdrawal
occurs.
Reminding lawmakers that he has always opposed strict deadlines for
completing U.S. troop withdrawals, Secretary Gates offered this
interpretation of the president's thinking.
"The date of July 2011 to begin thinning our forces and transitioning
the security responsibilities to the Afghans is a firm date that the
president has established," Gates said. "But the pace of that draw
down, the location of the drawdown and so on will be conditions-based,
and to use his words, a 'responsible draw down' as we have done in
Iraq."
Gates again described the process as sending two major messages - one,
an ongoing U.S. commitment symbolized up by the deployment of 30,000
more U.S. troops; the other, a signal of urgency with a date by which
Afghans must begin shouldering more security responsibilities.
Admiral Mullen dismissed suggestions by critics that July 2011 was
chosen arbitrarily. He said, it is a target that U.S. commanders and
war planners reached, based on assessments of conditions on the
ground.
"It is not an arbitrary date. It is the third summer, if you will,
that the [U.S.] Marines will be in [Afghanistan's southern] Helmand
[province]," Mullen said. "And we will have a clear indication from
three seasons, if you will, of the heart of the fighting season there,
which way this is going."
Admiral Mullen and Secretaries Gates and Clinton faced tough questions
from lawmakers on the Senate and House Armed Services Committees.
Saying he does not see a comprehensive policy for Afghanistan or a
clear Pakistan strategy, Democratic Senator Robert Menendez had this
exchange with Secretary Clinton:
"Can any of you tell this committee that, in fact, after July 2011, we
won't have tens of thousands of troops [in Afghanistan] for years
after that date?" asked Senator Menendez.
"Well Senator, I can tell you what the intention is, and the intention
is . . ." Secretart if State Hillary Clinton responded.
"Madame Secretary, I don't want to hear what the intention is,"
Menendez interrupted. "I want to know can you tell the committee that
there won't be tens of thousands troops after July 2011 for years
after that?"
Clinton then described what she called a "convergence" between U.S.
objectives and statements by President Karzai that Afghans will be
able to shoulder security responsibilities in key areas within three
years, and within five years for the entire country.
All three officials said that the actual number of U.S. troops to be
sent to Afghanistan in the coming months would likely be higher than
30,000, when support forces are taken into account.
Admiral Mullen said the military and the administration will conduct a
major review in about one year to assess what changes might be needed.
Republicans lawmakers such as Senator Johnny Isakson questioned
President Obama's decision to set a date for beginning the withdrawal
process, saying it provides an advantage to al-Qaida and the Taliban.
"This July 2011 date, if they interpret it as an end game for us, it
gives them some opportunity," Isakson said.
Meanwhile, Senate Democrat John Kerry said that Pakistan must be the
real focus of U.S. concerns, while Republican Senator Richard Lugar
questioned what the Obama administration is doing to ensure Pakistan's
cooperation as part of President Obama's overall strategy.
"We have largely expelled al-Qaida from Afghanistan. Today, it is the
presence of al-Qaida in Pakistan - its direct ties to and support from
the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the perils of an unstable nuclear-
armed Pakistan that drive our mission," Senator John Kerry said.
"On one side, we are going to [put] in place additional troops dealing
with these 11 provinces in Afghanistan. But what is not clear is
precisely what is going to happen in Pakistan in this alliance of the
two of us - the U.S. and Pakistan in this case," noted Senator Richard
Lugar.
During the House Armed Services Committee hearing, Democrat John
Spratt questioned the true cost of the troop buildup, now estimated to
be
between $30 billion and $35 billion.
The Obama administration is expected to send a supplemental request to
Congress for additional funds to support operations in Afghanistan.
This would include military needs and money to pay for the civilian
component of the president's plan.
bademiyansubhanallah
By Gregory Viscusi and Patrick Donahue
Dec. 4 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. and Afghan forces began an operation in
southern Afghanistan to disrupt Taliban militants, the first offensive
since President Barack Obama announced plans to send 30,000 more
troops to the South Asian country.
The offensive in the northern part of Helmand province, called
operation Cobra’s Anger, is being led by 900 American Marines and 150
Afghan soldiers, U.S. military spokesman Nicolas Melendez said in an e-
mail. British troops from Task Force Helmand also are involved in the
operation that began today.
Obama announced three days ago the deployment of the additional U.S.
troops to roll back Taliban forces and stabilize the government of
Afghan President Hamid Karzai. NATO countries today pledged 7,000
additional soldiers from more than 25 countries -- including the U.K.,
Italy and Poland -- to help in the fight.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies will seek to deploy
almost 150,000 foreign troops in the country in total to wrest back
areas that have been taken over by the Taliban, particularly in the
southern provinces of Kandahar and Helmand. The latter is the center
of Afghanistan’s opium production, an illicit trade that provides a
major source of income for the insurgents.
One aim of Cobra’s Anger is to clear mines and provide security around
the almost-deserted Now Zad, allowing the Afghan government to begin
the repopulation of what was once the province’s second-largest city,
Melendez said.
British Contingent
Obama’s buildup will put close to 100,000 U.S. troops in the country.
The rest of NATO currently has a combined force of about 38,000 there.
Britain, the largest contributor of combat troops after the U.S., is
boosting its force by 500 to more than 10,000. Italy will add 1,000,
taking its force to 3,800.
Pressure mounted on Germany and France to send more troops. Both have
said they’ll consider further contributions after an international
conference on Afghanistan to be held in London on Jan. 28.
Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, which extended its current
mission by a year yesterday, has come under pressure in the fallout of
a Sept. 4 German-ordered air strike in northern Afghanistan that
killed as many as 142 people, including civilians. The incident led to
the resignations of a cabinet minister and the country’s top general.
Sixty-nine percent of German voters want the country’s military to
pull out of Afghanistan as soon as possible, up 12 percentage points
from September, according to an Infratest dimap poll for ARD
television released today.
War Escalation
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said his country, which in
2008 raised its force level to 3,100 by sending a battalion to hard-
fought eastern Afghanistan, plans to stand pat for now, though he
didn’t rule out a further adjustment.
Obama says the escalation of the war in Afghanistan will allow the
U.S. to begin withdrawing troops as early as July 2011, depending on
security conditions. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates told
lawmakers yesterday that such a pullout will occur a district or a
province at a time as Afghan forces take over.
The U.S. and NATO’s effort to bolster the government have been
complicated by the weakening of Karzai’s position, after his Aug. 20
re-election was marred by voting fraud. Karzai, who was declared the
winner last month after his main rival dropped out of a runoff vote,
allied himself with regional warlords accused of corruption.
To contact the reporter on this story: Gregory Viscusi in Paris at
gvis...@bloomberg.net; Patrick Donahue in Berlin at at
pdon...@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: December 4, 2009 11:33 EST
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aPdSgU16_QkE
bademiyansubhanallah
If a war's worth fighting, isn't it worth paying for?
Congress has raised taxes to fund most of our fighting, but since 9/11
the war bills have been piling up. The Share the Sacrifice Act would
change that, bringing a way to pay for the Afghanistan war.
By Charles A. Stevenson
December 4, 2009
Congress used to raise taxes to pay for America's wars. Isn't it time
to return to that practice?
In 1798, Congress enacted its first direct tax -- on land, houses and
slaves -- to pay for the naval expansion in what historians now call
the Quasi-War with France.
In 1804, Congress levied a 2.5% tax on top of import duties already in
effect to create a Mediterranean Fund to pay for additional ships and
naval operations against the Barbary pirates.
Eight years later, Congress doubled existing import duties and levied
new taxes, then issued bonds when that revenue proved inadequate to
pay for the War of 1812 against Britain.
In the case of the Mexican-American War, 1846 to 1848, taxes covered
about 40% of the costs, with borrowing required to pay for the rest.
The Civil War, 1861 to 1865, led to the first income tax, but 90% of
the Union's costs were covered by money creation and debt.
In 1898, Congress enacted excise taxes on cosmetics, chewing gum,
playing cards and theater admissions, and doubled tobacco and beer
taxes. Lawmakers even voted for a tax on long-distance telephone calls
that was not repealed until 2006. These measures wound up covering two-
thirds of the cost of the Spanish-American War.
In World War I, Congress enacted a highly progressive income tax and a
corporate excess-profits tax that together financed about 60% of the
wartime costs.
In World War II, Congress raised income tax rates and lowered the
point at which the tax kicked in, requiring almost 90% of U.S. workers
to file tax returns. It also imposed a 95% excess-profits tax on
businesses, established wage and price controls and rationed some
goods. Even so, taxes covered only about 40% of the costs of the war.
In 1950, Congress financed the Korean War entirely by taxation, with
no borrowing.
Since then, presidents and Congress have been reluctant to raise taxes
to pay for our wars.
Congress voted for temporary 10% surcharges on income and corporate
taxes in 1968 and 1969 to help pay for the Vietnam War, but President
Lyndon Johnson mostly resorted to budgetary tricks to hide its real
costs, which just added to the deficit.
We lucked out in the 1991 Persian Gulf War only because other nations
contributed nearly 80% of the cost of U.S. military expenditures.
President George W. Bush refused to let the conflicts in Afghanistan
and Iraq shrink his huge tax cuts. Since 9/11, those two conflicts
have cost $843 billion. Before the troop buildup President Obama just
announced, the Iraq/Afghanistan price tag for the next year was
estimated at $130 billion. Sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan
will reportedly add an additional $30 billion to $40 billion to that
bill.
Several senior Democrats in the House, led by Appropriations Committee
Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.), have introduced what they call the
Share the Sacrifice Act. It would impose an income surtax sufficient
to cover each future year's cost of the Afghanistan war.
Obey's office estimates, for example, that a 1% levy would bring in
revenue of $68 billion, the pre-buildup budget for Afghanistan for
2010. Families earning up to $150,000 would pay no more than $226; 60%
of the burden would fall on households earning more than $250,000. The
tax would not go into effect until the 2111 tax year, and it would not
apply to people who served in a combat zone after the 9/11 attacks.
There are, of course, many other ways to calculate and impose taxes to
offset the cost of the war in Afghanistan. Some lawmakers might also
want to force the Pentagon to cut some of its other spending ($681
billion this coming budget year, according to the Congressional Budget
Office).
Whatever approach might be taken, the principle at stake is not to
exclude military expenditures from sound budgeting -- that is, we must
raise revenue in some way to pay for what we're spending. With the
federal deficit soaring to nearly $1.4 trillion in 2010, Congress
needs to explore a broad range of measures to limit the red ink.
The clever approach of the Share the Sacrifice Act is that it asks
those of us who have not endured combat to pay a little extra to
support those who are in harm's way on our behalf.
Charles A. Stevenson is the author of "Congress at War: The Politics
of Conflict Since 1789."
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-stevenson4-2009dec04,0,5019950.story
bademiyansubhanallah
Obama's folly
Rather than trying to salvage Bush's policy in Afghanistan, the
president should show real courage and just pull the plug.
December 3, 2009
Which is the greater folly: To fancy that war offers an easy solution
to vexing problems, or, knowing otherwise, to opt for war anyway?
In the wake of 9/11, American statecraft emphasized the first
approach: President George W. Bush embarked on a "global war" to
eliminate violent jihadism. President Obama now seems intent on
pursuing the second approach: Through military escalation in
Afghanistan, he seeks to "finish the job" that Bush began there, then
all but abandoned.
Through war, Bush set out to transform the greater Middle East.
Despite immense expenditures of blood and treasure, that effort
failed. In choosing Obama rather than John McCain to succeed Bush, the
American people acknowledged that failure as definitive. Obama's
election was to mark a new beginning, an opportunity to "reset"
America's approach to the world.
The president's chosen course of action for Afghanistan suggests he
may well squander that opportunity. Rather than renouncing Bush's
legacy, Obama apparently aims to salvage something of value. In
Afghanistan, he will expend yet more blood and more treasure hoping to
attenuate or at least paper over the wreckage left over from the Bush
era.
However improbable, Obama thereby finds himself following in the
footsteps of Richard Nixon. Running for president in 1968, Nixon
promised to end the Vietnam War. Once elected, he balked at doing so.
Obsessed with projecting an image of toughness and resolve -- U.S.
credibility was supposedly on the line -- Nixon chose to extend and
even to expand that war. Apart from driving up the costs that
Americans were called on to pay, this accomplished nothing.
If knowing when to cut your losses qualifies as a hallmark of
statesmanship, Nixon flunked. Vietnam proved irredeemable.
Obama's prospects of redeeming Afghanistan appear hardly more
promising. Achieving even a semblance of success, however modestly
defined, will require an Afghan government that gets its act together,
larger and more competent Afghan security forces, thousands of
additional reinforcements from allies already heading toward the
exits, patience from economically distressed Americans as the
administration shovels hundreds of billions of dollars toward Central
Asia, and even greater patience from U.S. troops shouldering the
burdens of seemingly perpetual war. Above all, success will require
convincing Afghans that the tens of thousands of heavily armed
strangers in their midst represent Western beneficence rather than
foreign occupation.
The president seems to appreciate the odds. The reluctance with which
he contemplates the transformation of Afghanistan into "Obama's war"
is palpable. Gone are the days of White House gunslingers barking
"Bring 'em on" and of officials in tailored suits and bright ties
vowing to do whatever it takes. The president has made clear his
interest in "offramps" and "exit strategies."
So if the most powerful man in the world wants out, why doesn't he
simply get out? For someone who vows to change the way Washington
works, Afghanistan seemingly offers a made-to-order opportunity to
make good on that promise. Why is Obama muffing the chance?
What Afghanistan tells us is that rather than changing Washington,
Obama has become its captive. The president has succumbed to the twin
illusions that have taken the political class by storm in recent
months. The first illusion, reflecting a self-serving interpretation
of the origins of 9/11, is that events in Afghanistan are crucial to
the safety and well-being of the American people. The second illusion,
the product of a self-serving interpretation of the Iraq War, is that
the U.S. possesses the wisdom and wherewithal to guide Afghanistan out
of darkness and into the light.
According to the first illusion, 9/11 occurred because Americans
ignored Afghanistan. By implication, fixing the place is essential to
preventing the recurrence of terrorist attacks on the U.S. In
Washington, the appeal of this explanation is twofold. It distracts
attention from the manifest incompetence of the government agencies
that failed on 9/11, while also making it unnecessary to consider how
U.S. policy toward the Middle East during the several preceding
decades contributed to the emergence of violent anti-Western
jihadism.
According to the second illusion, the war in Iraq is ending in a great
American victory. Forget the fact that the arguments advanced to
justify the invasion of March 2003 have all turned out to be bogus: no
Iraqi weapons of mass destruction found; no substantive links between
Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda established; no tide of democratic change
triggered across the Islamic world. Ignore the persistence of daily
violence in Iraq even today.
The "surge" engineered by Army Gen. David H. Petraeus in Iraq enables
proponents of that war to change the subject and to argue that the
counterinsurgency techniques employed in Iraq can produce similar
results in Afghanistan -- disregarding the fact that the two places
bear about as much resemblance to one another as North Dakota does to
Southern California.
So the war launched as a prequel to Iraq now becomes its sequel, with
little of substance learned in the interim. To double down in
Afghanistan is to ignore the unmistakable lesson of Bush's thoroughly
discredited "global war on terror": Sending U.S. troops to fight
interminable wars in distant countries does more to inflame than to
extinguish the resentments giving rise to violent anti-Western
jihadism.
There's always a temptation when heading in the wrong direction on the
wrong highway to press on a bit further. Perhaps down the road a piece
some shortcut will appear: Grandma's house this way.
Yet as any navigationally challenged father who has ever taken his
family on a road trip will tell you, to give in to that temptation is
to err. When lost, take the first offramp that presents itself and
turn around. That Obama -- by all accounts a thoughtful and
conscientious father -- seems unable to grasp this basic rule is
disturbing.
Under the guise of cleaning up Bush's mess, Obama has chosen to
continue Bush's policies. No doubt pulling the plug on an ill-advised
enterprise involves risk and uncertainty. It also entails
acknowledging mistakes. It requires courage. Yet without these things,
talk of change will remain so much hot air.
Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of history and international relations
at Boston University.
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-bacevich3-2009dec03,0,3209129.story
bademiyansubhanallah
Despite some questions, Obama's Afghan policy is sound
Given time, his strategy should work. But will there be time, and what
about 'winning'?
December 3, 2009
President Obama's Afghanistan policy raises some serious questions
(more on those in a moment), but to see why it has a decent chance of
working, it helps to visit the town of Nawa in southern Afghanistan's
Helmand River Valley. I was there in October and found that 1,000
Marines who had arrived during the summer had already made substantial
strides.
When the Marines got there, Nawa was practically a ghost town.
"It was strangled by the Taliban," Lt. Col. William McCollough, the
boyish commander of the 1st Battalion, 5th Marines, told me. "Anyone
who was here was beaten, taxed, intimidated."
The Marines provided security, and the town sprang back to life, with
schools opening, shops doing a bustling business and trucks bringing
in goods. The residents of Nawa, like most Afghans, were happy to be
free of the Taliban and their theocratic decrees.
But McCollough cautioned that the progress was as fragile as an
eggshell. In particular, he worried about the dark pull exerted by
Marjah, less than 10 miles away. A town of 50,000 people, Marjah has
long been a haven of opium smugglers and insurgents who terrorize the
surrounding area.
Commanders at Camp Leatherneck, the headquarters of 10,000 Marines
operating in Helmand province, realize that it is essential to take
Marjah, just as it was essential to take Fallouja and Ramadi in Iraq.
But they also know -- or rather they knew when I visited -- that they
didn't have enough infantry to achieve that objective. They were
spread thin just trying to consolidate gains in towns such as Nawa.
President Obama's decision to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan
changes the equation. The first reinforcements will be Marines headed
for Helmand -- and a likely showdown in Marjah. There will be hard
fighting ahead, just as there was last summer when Marines entered
Nawa and other Taliban strongholds. But with enough resources and
enough patience, there is little doubt that American troops and their
Afghan allies will be able to secure key areas of southern Afghanistan
that have slipped out of the government's grasp.
Then they can begin the hard work of building Afghan government
capacity -- a process that has already started in Nawa, where the
district governor is working closely with the Marines to provide
essential services to the people. Local merchants are even taking the
initiative to string power lines, previously nonexistent in this
impoverished community.
The questions that remain unanswered after the president's West Point
address: Will the troops have the time and resources needed to win?
"Win" is a word that Obama avoided. He cited his long-standing goal of
"disrupting, dismantling and defeating Al Qaeda and its extremist
allies," but he spoke merely of his desire to "break the Taliban's
momentum" rather than defeat it altogether. He spoke of wanting to
"end this war successfully" but said nothing of winning the war.
Nor did he endorse nation-building, even though the only way that
Afghanistan will ever be secure is if we build a state capable of
policing its own territory. He did say we "must strengthen the
capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government," which
sounds a bit like nation-building, but then he also promised that he
would not make an open-ended troop commitment, "because the nation
that I'm most interested in building is our own."
The most problematic part of Obama's policy is his pledge to begin a
withdrawal in July 2011. Getting 30,000 troops into Afghanistan is a
difficult logistical challenge. It will be a major achievement if all
of them are in place by July 2010. That will give them only one year
to reverse many years of Taliban gains before their own numbers start
to dwindle. That may or may not be sufficient. The "surge" in Iraq had
a big impact within a year, but the U.S. had made a much bigger
commitment to Iraq pre-surge than it has in Afghanistan.
The good part of the deadline is that it presumably means we will be
spared another agonizing White House review for at least another year.
That's no small thing, given that Obama first unveiled an Afghan
strategy on March 27, and less than six months later launched another
drawn-out and very public reappraisal.
The worrisome part of the deadline is that it may signal a lack of
resolve that emboldens our enemies. If Afghanistan is indeed a "vital
national interest," as Obama said, why announce an exit strategy?
Perhaps he is trying to head off criticism from his liberal
supporters. If so, his gambit hasn't worked, but it has worried
supporters of the war effort, who must continue to wonder about the
president's level of commitment.
Obama tried to address this concern by saying, "We will execute this
transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground,"
thereby suggesting that perhaps the July 2011 deadline isn't so firm
after all. But if it's not a real deadline, why mention it at all?
That is only one of many ambiguities that Obama must address in the
months ahead. He must keep the war effort front and center, which he
failed to do after unveiling his previous Afghanistan policy in March.
He should speak of the importance of winning -- that word that has so
far been AWOL -- to keep up morale on the home front and to break the
enemy's will to resist.
But for all the problems of the West Point address, the policy he
announced is sound. It is essentially the strategy that Army Gen.
Stanley A. McChrystal and his team of advisors developed this summer
for a comprehensive counterinsurgency -- yet another word Obama
avoided, oddly enough. The president isn't providing quite as many
troops as McChrystal would like, but, counting allies' contributions,
there probably will be enough to secure key population centers.
At the same time, our troops must work to build up Afghanistan's
security forces. Yet another missing element in Obama's speech was the
lack of a specific commitment to expand the Afghan security forces,
but there is little doubt that this is our only responsible exit
strategy. Before the Afghans can take the lead, however, our troops
must first reduce the enemy's toughest strongholds. That process
begins in Marjah.
Max Boot is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a
contributing editor to Opinion.
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-boot3-2009dec03,0,1064799.story
bademiyansubhanallah
The reality of Afghanistan
Tim Rutten
December 2, 2009
As his address at West Point on Tuesday night suggests, Barack Obama's
presidency is turning out to be historic in more than the obvious way.
Obama and Harry Truman are the only presidents to take office with the
country engaged in two wars. (Though history lumps them together as
World War II, the conflicts with Germany in Europe and with Japan in
the Pacific were -- in military terms -- distinct struggles.) And even
if he wins a second term, Obama also is very likely to be the first
chief executive since Abraham Lincoln called on to function as a
wartime commander in chief for the entirety of his presidency.
War and economic crisis are certain to define Obama's presidency,
despite his hopes for a dramatic expansion of opportunity through
domestic reforms, such as universal access to affordable healthcare.
Tuesday's address thus will long stand as a milestone, and a reminder
that history dishes out its challenges without respect to the agendas
of politicians or parties. By meeting Army Gen. Stanley A.
McChrystal's request for tens of thousands of additional troops to
fight the war in Afghanistan, the president has done two things: He
has reaffirmed the sincerity of his campaign declaration that the
Afghan war is one of necessity while that in Iraq is one of choice.
Equally important, he has accepted his advisors' belief that the hard-
won lessons of the Iraqi conflict are transferable to Afghanistan.
As we now know, the war in Iraq turned around when three forces
conjoined under Army Gen. David H. Petraeus' counterinsurgency
strategy:
1) Troop levels surged so that territory cleared of insurgents could
be held while Iraqi civil institutions began to take root;
2) The so-called Anbar awakening managed to persuade increasing
numbers of Sunni Iraqis to abandon Al Qaeda-style jihadism for
nationalism;
3) Semi-secret technologies and tactics were used to kill insurgent
leaders while limiting civilian casualties.
Even if some combination or variant of these tactics works in
Afghanistan, it will be many months -- probably years -- before the
results are apparent. In the meantime, Obama will face intense
criticism, not only from partisan antagonists such as former Vice
President Dick Cheney, who already is denouncing the president as
weak, but also from within his own party. When high-ranking Democratic
congressmen such as David Obey, John Murtha and Charles Rangel
announce they're going to demand an income surtax to fund the war,
it's a legislative shot across the president's bow, an implicit demand
that he choose between his domestic agenda and what he perceives as
his duty to national security.
However the costs are borne, moreover, no one should fool themselves
about the real end game here. The most the United States can hope to
achieve in Afghanistan is to pacify the countryside and empower the
military and police sufficiently so that the Taliban doesn't reopen
the country to internationally minded jihadis like Al Qaeda. The
United States will not remake Afghan society nor create a recognizable
democracy there, nor will we emancipate the country's wretchedly
treated women. When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, it was a
desperately poor, mainly illiterate, deeply traditional, xenophobic
and backward place. It still is. The Soviets' occupation added an
overlay of brutality and lawlessness, while the Islamic fighters who
flocked to resist them introduced a virulently intolerant version of
Islam previously unknown there. On any given day, it's a coin toss as
to whether the most dangerous failed state in the world is Somalia or
Afghanistan.
A great deal has been made about the time that has elapsed between
McChrystal's request for additional troops and Obama's decision to
order their deployment. The word "dithering" has been used more than
once, and when the president recently made a nighttime journey to
Dover Air Force Base to see and salute the bodies of our casualties
being unloaded there, there was a reflexive impulse to treat the
occasion as a campaign-style photo op.
Obama's decision to announce this new "surge" before a military
academy audience of future Army officers and their instructors
suggests something different. Like the unexpected visit to Dover, the
West Point address was an unspoken acknowledgment that some Americans
will die and some American families will grieve so that the rest of us
can be safe. Even necessary wars exact almost unbearable costs. Like
Lincoln, Obama is a president who appears to feel this reality
personally, which is why he repeatedly has told his military audiences
that he never will casually put them in harm's way, nor deny them the
resources required to execute their duties as safely as possible.
Tuesday's speech affirmed that laudable resolve.
The Afghan conflict is a war of necessity, and the troops sent to
prosecute it now appear to have the means required to bring it to a
successful conclusion. And though Obama's strategy will not transform
Afghanistan, it may someday make that country safe enough to leave.
The notion that anything more can be achieved in that backward and
tragic place is folly, as is the wishful fantasy that American
casualties will do anything but climb in the months ahead. Too little
has changed in Afghanistan in the century since Britain was forced to
police what was then India's northwest frontier and Rudyard Kipling
bitterly foresaw the fate of the men sent to do that work:
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rutten2-2009dec02,0,510671.column
bademiyansubhanallah
What the U.S. can achieve in Afghanistan, despite Karzai
The Afghan president is in for five more years. But Washington can
compensate for his failings by persuading him to choose strong,
principled Cabinet ministers and delegate authority to them.
By Mark Moyar
December 1, 2009
Although the White House thoroughly examined the Afghan government
before choosing the strategy that it will unveil tonight, the
composition of that government -- and hence its character -- remains
highly uncertain. We know the reelection of Hamid Karzai has left
Afghanistan with five more years of a president who lacks leadership
attributes essential for the job. Inclined toward conciliation and
leniency, Karzai would make a fine president of a Kiwanis Club, but he
presides over a country replete with recalcitrant tribal elders and
crooked warlords that demands a leader with the toughness to strong-
arm troublemakers and keep subordinates under control.
But Washington can compensate for Karzai's failings by persuading him
to make personnel changes and delegate greater authority to
subordinates, especially Cabinet ministers. During the run-up to this
year's election, Karzai bought the support of a host of warlords and
other power players by promising them Cabinet positions. How he
distributes those posts could be more important than the election
itself.
History offers spectacular examples of cabinet ministers who wreaked
havoc on insurgencies while serving under weak chiefs of state. In the
Philippines, for example, President Elpidio Quirino won the 1949
election after ballot boxes were stuffed with the votes of dead
people, flowers and birds. Corruption surged after the tainted
election, and Quirino's inert security forces allowed the Huk
insurgents to dominate the countryside. Americans complained that they
lacked a credible partner, and in the summer of 1950, senior U.S.
officials quietly urged Quirino to appoint the dynamic Philippine
congressman Ramon Magsaysay as defense secretary. In return, they
said, U.S. aid would increase. Quirino agreed to appoint Magsaysay
and, more reluctantly, granted him full control over military
leadership appointments.
Touring the country in disguise, Magsaysay relieved commanders --
including Quirino's friends and family -- who avoided dangerous areas
or tolerated abuses of the population. During these trips, Magsaysay's
energy and resilience rubbed off on Philippine officers. Within a few
months, Philippine soldiers stopped stealing chickens and started
pursuing the insurgents. Consequently, public support for the
insurgents dropped and insurgent fighters defected en masse.
The empowerment of an excellent defense minister similarly enabled El
Salvador to escape from the brink of defeat in 1983. Breaking with
Salvadoran tradition, Defense Minister Carlos Eugenio Vides Casanova
checked on commanders in the field and made wholesale personnel
changes based on merit. He sharply reduced the violence perpetrated by
the government's security forces and death squads, though he did not
eliminate it, and helped cultivate a rising generation of leaders with
resolve and respect for human rights -- officers who ultimately made
enduring democracy and peace possible in El Salvador.
In Afghanistan, the current defense minister, Gen. Abdul Rahim Wardak
-- with much assistance from U.S. military advisors -- has developed
large numbers of able junior officers. Wardak, however, faces
formidable constraints that Magsaysay and Vides Casanova did not.
Afghanistan is acutely short on the seasoned mid-career officers
required for the command of battalions and brigades. When Wardak has
sought to fire poor commanders, Karzai has often, for political or
personal reasons, kept those leaders in power or rotated them to
similar positions elsewhere.
Whereas Magsaysay and Vides Casanova commanded most of the country's
security forces, Wardak does not control the 80,000-man Afghan
National Police, the sole counterinsurgency force in much of the
country. The police belong to the Interior Ministry, for years a
cesspool of incompetence and corruption. Last fall, Karzai handed the
ministry to Mohamad Hanif Atmar, who has shown promise by cracking
down on corruption and appointing better men as police chiefs. But he
too is subject to harmful interference from Karzai's office.
The Obama administration must marshal all its influence to ensure that
the key posts in Karzai's new Cabinet belong to talented and dedicated
executives, and that they receive complete authority over personnel
decisions. Putting in place warlords such as Mohammad Qasim Fahim and
Abdul Rashid Dostum could be disastrous -- though it's worth noting
that Vides Casanova's reputation was as checkered as theirs before he
cleaned up the Salvadoran security forces.
Maximizing America's influence with Karzai will require better
relationships between senior American and Afghan officials, which may
entail personnel changes on the American side. Senior Americans have
been standoffish in private and accusatory in public, making Karzai
less receptive to U.S. recommendations. They should instead build
relationships of trust and save their rebukes for closed-door
meetings. That was the approach employed by the only American who has
exerted great positive influence on Karzai, former U.S. Ambassador
Zalmay Khalilzad.
Empowering capable ministers will not solve all of Afghanistan's
problems. While the defense and interior ministers can remove bad
commanders and inspire the others, they do not have enough good
officers with the experience to serve in vital local leadership
positions. Therefore, additional U.S. troops will still be required in
the near term.
With the right Afghan ministers and smart American assistance, U.S.
troops will buy Afghanistan time to develop capable commanders and
police chiefs. A new generation of leaders, already visible in the
army and just beginning to form in the police, can ultimately allow
our Afghan allies to thrive without American troops.
Mark Moyar is a professor of national security affairs at the U.S.
Marine Corps University and the author of "A Question of Command:
Counterinsurgency from the Civil War to Iraq."
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-moyar1-2009dec01,0,988938.story
...and I am Sid harth
chhotemianinshallah
Khan Nashin in the Afganistan's volatile Helmand province Friday.
Kevin Frayer/AP
Gates, other US officials clarify timeline for Afghanistan pullout
Defense Secretary Gates says deadlines, whether for the Pentagon
bureaucracy or for Afghanistan leaders, are the best way to get things
done.
By Gordon Lubold | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the December 4, 2009 edition
Print this Buzz up!Email and shareRepublish E-mail newsletters RSS
Washington - Republicans can mostly live with President Obama's new
strategy for Afghanistan. But they continue to stumble over the July
2011 timeline for beginning to withdraw troops.
Since Tuesday, when Mr. Obama announced his strategy to deploy 30,000
additional troops to Afghanistan, administration officials have sought
to clarify just what that timeline means. That's in response to
concerns from conservative lawmakers and military experts who say that
putting a deadline on the American commitment undermines the strategy.
Obama says that logic is faulty.
For military experts and many conservatives, the thinking goes like
this: Right now, many Afghans are trying to pick a winner – side with
the Taliban and assume all the risk that entails, or side with the
Americans (and the Afghan government and allied troops) and risk being
abandoned come 2011.
Those fence-sitters may decide it's better to stick with the Taliban
than bet on the American horse because the Americans will ultimately
leave. Siding with a force that won't be around for a very long time
could be dangerous.
In a counterinsurgency, protecting the population and weakening the
enemy come by luring those fence-sitters to your side, thus isolating
the true insurgents and weakening their power. The Taliban is fond of
telling people: "The Americans have the wristwatches, but we have all
the time."
"That feeds into that," says one staffer on Capitol Hill, referring to
the July 2011 timeline.
"The White House's rationalization for this is incorrect," agrees Fred
Kagan, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise
Institute, a think tank in Washington.
Mr. Kagan, who helped craft the "surge" strategy for Iraq in 2006,
says Obama's new strategy is mostly sound, but he has concerns about
this aspect of it.
"It will certainly be used by our enemies that the American commitment
is limited," he says.
But the administration's thinking flouts that logic, seeing more value
in setting deadlines to get things done than agreeing to what may
amount to a political and not a military tactic.
"The logic of the Taliban waiting everything out subscribes to the
logic that we will be there forever," said one senior administration
official this week. "This is not an open-ended commitment."
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who helped to broker the deal on
Afghanistan, has in part been successful in motivating his Pentagon
bureaucracy by setting deadlines. He has said that is one of the few
ways to get things done within a bureaucracy often paralyzed by
inertia. Ditto for Afghanistan.
The 2011 deadline is a hard-to-achieve goal, Mr. Gates says, but it
gives plenty of time for the Afghan government and security forces to
begin to stand up.
"That transition has to occur, I think we can all agree on, and a
surge is a surge so it's a reasonable time frame to achieve the
effects that we want to achieve," he says.
The American commitment to the region is nevertheless a long one, says
Michael Vickers, assistant secretary of defense for Special Operations
and Low Intensity Conflict.
That said, administration officials acknowledged this week that the
rollout of that aspect of the strategy was not as clear as it should
have been.
Obama's speech glossed over the issue, leaving administration
officials like Gates to clarify. In fact, Pentagon officials tweaked
the language Gates used to describe the timeline from one day of
testimony to the next.
On Wednesday, the day after Obama's speech, Gates said the handover of
security responsibility in July 2011 would begin "district by
district."
By Thursday, Gates' answer was a bit more nuanced: "July 2011, the
time at which the president said the United States will begin to draw
down our forces, will be the beginning of a process, an inflection
point, if you will, of transition for Afghan forces as they begin to
assume greater responsibility for security."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1204/p02s08-usfp.html
chhotemianinshallah
State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Michael
Mullen, testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, before the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Afghanistan.
(Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP) Enlarge Photos (1 of 1)
Gates: Afghanistan surge could require more than 30,000 troops
Defense Secretary Robert Gates told Congress Thursday that the
Afghanistan surge could require 3,000 more support troops in addition
to the 30,000 troops President Obama announced this week.
By Gordon Lubold | Staff writer/ December 3, 2009 edition
Washington
President Obama announced this week that he is deploying 30,000
additional forces to Afghanistan between now and next summer. But
Robert Gates, his Pentagon chief, said today that he needs the
flexibility to deploy as many as 3,000 more troops on top of that.
During testimony on Capitol Hill Thursday, Mr. Gates said he has to be
able to give the battlefield commander what he needs and if that means
deploying slightly more forces, he will do that.
“One of the things that I’ve tried to make clear consistently is that
when you’re looking ahead, it is impossible to foresee every need,”
Gates told a Senate panel reviewing the new Afghan strategy. Gates
said he may need additional medical or intelligence personnel,
engineers for road-clearing assistance, or other support troops.
“I have asked him for a modest amount of flexibility on that,” he
said.
Gates, a Republican holdover from the Bush administration who is
widely respected by both parties, is credited with brokering the new
strategy between the military and the White House.
Echoes of Iraq
The potential need for more support troops is reminiscent of the surge
of troops in Iraq in 2007. When the plan was first rolled out,
military officials said the surge of five combat brigades would be
about 21,000 troops. Ultimately, however, an additional 8,000 troops
were deployed in support of combat forces for a total surge of about
30,000.
The revelation that the Pentagon may need to deploy even more forces
raises concern among some lawmakers that the new strategy could lead
to mission creep.
“You have no doubt that we will not be adding more troops to
Afghanistan after this deployment outside of the 3,000, potentially,
that you may have to add?” asked Sen. Ted Kaufman (D) of Delaware.
“That is the commitment that we have made to the president,” Gates
responded.
Obama’s war by the numbers
The number of forces already deployed under Obama tops the number he
announced this week. Since Obama took office in January, 32,000 new
forces have been deployed to Afghanistan. Those 32,000 troops include
the 21,000 Obama deployed this spring and another 11,000 deployed
under President Bush but which didn’t actually leave for Afghanistan
until this year.
All told, Obama will have dramatically deepened the American
commitment there, from 36,000 American forces in January to nearly
100,000 by next summer.
chhotemianinshallah
By ROBERT BURNS (AP) – 1 hour ago
BRUSSELS — NATO allies will bolster the American troop surge in
Afghanistan by sending at least 7,000 soldiers of their own, officials
said Friday in pledges that U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham
Clinton described as crucial to turning the tide in the stalemated
war.
The promised increase came as U.S. Marines and Afghan troops launched
the first offensive since President Barack Obama announced a 30,000-
troop American increase. The Marines and Afghan forces struck Taliban
communications and supply lines Friday in an insurgent stronghold in
southern Afghanistan.
In yet another war development, U.S. officials said the Obama
administration may expand missile strikes on al-Qaida and the Taliban
inside Pakistan and will focus on training Pakistan's forces in a
border area where militants have been aiding the Afghan insurgency.
In Washington, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Friday's
offensive was a continuation of operations, not a direct result of
Obama's new war strategy. But he added the assault was "consistent
with the strategy that the president laid out."
Hundreds of Marines were dropped by helicopter and MV-22 Osprey
aircraft behind Taliban lines in the northern end of the Now Zad
Valley of Helmand province, scene of heavy fighting last summer,
according to Marine spokesman Maj. William Pelletier.
In Brussels, Clinton told allied foreign ministers that it was
essential that contributions to the war effort be provided as quickly
as possible. She thanked Italy for its announcement that it will send
an additional 1,000 troops and Britain for its pledge of another 500,
but she said nonmilitary assistance is equally important.
"The need for additional forces is urgent, but their presence will not
be indefinite," she told the North Atlantic Council, NATO's highest
political group.
NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen of Denmark told reporters
at the organization's headquarters that still further NATO forces
might be in the offing, suggesting there would be "more to come."
Also, Adm. James Stavridis, the top NATO and U.S. commander in Europe,
said in an Associated Press interview that he expects several thousand
more non-U.S. troops might be added to the 7,000.
"What we are all underlining to potential troop contributors is that
we are truly asking for emphasis in the training area," Stavridis
said.
The transformation of Afghanistan's army and police is critical to
fulfill Obama's intention to begin pulling out American units 18
months from now.
According to a copy of Clinton's prepared remarks to the closed-door
NATO meeting, she told the ministers that "the pace, size and scope of
the drawdown will be predicated on the situation on the ground."
"If things are going well, a larger number of forces could be removed
from more areas," she said. "If not, the size and speed of the
drawdown will be adjusted accordingly."
No one was saying a quick pullout.
Said Fogh Rasmussen: "Transition (to Afghan control) does not mean
exit."
Afghanistan's security forces have been hobbled by a lack of training
and resources, but U.S. officials hope to bolster their ability by
sending them out with American and allied troops into battle zones.
At least 150 Afghan troops joined about 1,000 Marines in Friday's
offensive in Helmand province, said a spokesman for the Afghan
governor there, Daood Ahmadi. He said the bodies of four slain Taliban
had been recovered and more than 300 mines and roadside bombs turned
up by Friday evening.
The new offensive aims to cut off the Taliban communication routes
through Helmand and disrupt their supply lines, especially those
providing explosives for the numerous lethal roadside bombs, or
improvised explosive devices, that litter the area, known by Marines
as "IED Alley."
In Washington, there has been growing discussion of a need to expand
the use of airborne missile-equipped drones in volatile regions of
Pakistan, Afghanistan's neighbor.
The CIA has already accelerated the pace of its drone attacks in
Pakistan's federally administered tribal areas this year.
Associated Press Writers Amir Shah in Kabul and Anne Flaherty, Pauline
Jelinek and Lolita C. Baldor in Washington contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, center, speaks with
counterparts as they pose for a group photo at NATO headquarters in
Brussels, Friday, Dec. 4, 2009. Some two dozen countries will send an
estimated 7,000 more troops to Afghanistan next year, the chief of
NATO said Friday as U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton
told her allied counterparts that an infusion of forces is crucial to
turning the tide in the long war. (AP Photo/Geert Vanden Wijngaert)
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jcvyk85-txa-h8FQq9am834aJLnwD9CCN0CG0
chhotemianinshallah
Posted : Fri, 04 Dec 2009 17:28:03 GMT
By : dpa
Brussels - NATO and its allies have pledged to send at least 37,000
extra combat troops to Afghanistan next year, NATO Secretary General
Anders Fogh Rasmussen said after talks in Brussels on Friday. Western
commanders have called for up to 40,000 extra troops in a bid to
defeat the Taliban-linked insurgency. On Tuesday, the United States
announced plans to send 30,000 extra combat troops to the
International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in the country.
"At least 25 countries will send more forces to the mission in 2010.
They have offered around 7,000 new forces, with more to come. Counting
the US contribution, that means ISAF will have at least 37,000 more in
2010 than it did this year," Rasmussen said.
US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton praised her country's
allies for their commitment, which is seen as a strong endorsement of
Obama's strategy, at the meeting of NATO and ISAF foreign ministers.
"This is a significant commitment by our NATO ISAF partners. I'm just
extremely heartened by the level of positive response we have
received," she said.
The number could yet rise, since some countries, such as Germany, are
only expected to decide on reinforcements after an international
conference on Afghanistan in London on January 28.
"In addition to the clear pledges already tabled, we have heard ...
indications that other allies and partners will probably be in a
position to announce further contributions in the coming weeks and
months," Rasmussen said.
The meeting approved a new strategy aimed at reducing Afghan civilian
casualties, strengthening the country's economy and cleaning up its
government.
"The ISAF operation will have, as a priority, the protection of the
Afghan people, building Afghan security capacity and facilitating
governance and development," a statement approved by ministers said.
NATO "shares the emphasis" of Afghan President Hamid Karzai on issues
such as fighting corruption and protecting human rights, it said.
The declaration also committed ISAF members to backing Afghan efforts
to bring militant fighters back into civilian life.
"We have agreed to support the Afghan authorities on reintegration
issues and stand ready to contribute to a process of reconciliation.
Both these processes must be Afghan-led and -owned," it said.
It further insisted that the alliance will only start to scale back
its operations in Afghanistan once local forces are capable of
defending the state.
"Increasing Afghanistan's lead role across the board remains our
primary objective. ... Our mission will be accomplished when Afghan
forces can secure their own country," the statement said.
NATO has been mired in conflict with Taliban-linked insurgents for
eight years, and is desperate to teach the Afghan authorities how to
defend and organize their country so that Western troops can go home.
"We are keenly aware that the members of this alliance have paid a
steep price in lives and treasure, and we honour their service and
sacrifice," Clinton said.
NATO's regular winter talks came three days after US President Barack
Obama announced plans to send an extra 30,000 combat troops to
Afghanistan, sparking a flurry of pledges from other NATO states.
"We need more numbers than we have with our own troops, and more
functions than we have at present, and we have gone a long way towards
meeting those needs today," Clinton said.
At the talks, Germany vowed to increase its civilian efforts pending a
decision on troop reinforcements.
"We are ready to do more in civilian development, especially in
building up and training the police, so that there can be self-
sustaining security by the Afghans in Afghanistan," Germany's new
foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, said.
But concerns remained over the West's ability to raise the number of
trainers it needs to build up a viable Afghan security system.
On Thursday, ISAF spokesman General Eric Tremblay said then force had
62 of the 103 army training teams it needs, and just 16 out of 180
police training units.
"The training mission is absolutely essential to make good on our
promise not to create a colony in Afghanistan, but instead to build a
society that can defend itself," British Foreign Secretary David
Miliband said.
According to NATO calculations, 24 ISAF members together have pledged
to provide an extra 35,529 troops next year. Further pledges totalling
at least 1,500 soldiers are expected to be confirmed in the coming
weeks.
Britain, Georgia and Italy have each pledged around 1,000 soldiers,
while Poland has promised 600 and South Korea 400.
Croatia, Lithuania, Poland and Turkey have all offered to supply
police and army training teams.
Copyright DPA
bademiyansubhanallah
www.chinaview.cn 2009-12-05 00:45:38
WASHINGTON, Dec. 4 (Xinhua) -- The Unites States has no intention
of leaving Afghanistan in 2011, nor in the near future, said the
president's National Security Adviser James Jones on Friday.
Talking to reporters in Washington, Jones said the administration
"has no intention of leaving Afghanistan in the near future and
certainly not in 2011."
When announcing 30,000 fresh troops to Afghanistan on Tuesday,
President Barack Obama said the United States would begin to withdraw
from that country in July 2011.
The timeframe for withdrawal caused certain stir, with Republicans
and pundits questioning the wisdom of setting such a timeframe. They
argue insurgents inside Afghanistan would be emboldened by it.
The administration has since sought to alley anxiety about U.S.
exit from Afghanistan. Defense Secretary Robert Gates suggested
Thursday before Congress both troops number and drawdown date in
Obama's Afghan decision have certain flexibility.
Editor: Yan
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-12/05/content_12592211.htm
bademiyansubhanallah
Taliban'
Travelling by road in Afghanistan is now more dangerous than it was
when the Taliban were in power, Britain's most senior commander in
Helmand has admitted.
By Aislinn Laing and Ben Farmer, in Afghanistan
Published: 7:30AM GMT 04 Dec 2009
There is a constant threat from sophisticated IEDs on Afghan roads
Photo: AP
Major General Nick Carter said that, before the 2001 invasion, young
women could travel alone between major cities without risk of harm.
Now, there is a constant threat from sophisticated IEDs and criminal
gangs who rob and kidnap passengers.
The admission heaped further pressure on Gordon Brown's strategy in
Afghanistan, suggesting that little had changed despite the long and
bloody campaign.
But a Ministry of Defence spokesman sought to play down the remark,
saying that security under the Taliban was enforced brutally whereas
coalition forces would enforce it with democracy and justice.
"The difference, I think we need to be clear, is that when the Taliban
were here they did ensure security on the main highways and they did
it very effectively," Maj Gen Carter said.
"You could put your daughter on a bus in Kabul sure in the knowledge
that she would get in one piece to Kandahar.
"That is not the case at the moment, and we need to change that."
Roadside bombs planted by the Taliban are a major part of the problem,
accounting for around 70 per cent of casualties among coalition troops
alone.
But the criminal gangs that operate with seeming impunity are of equal
concern to locals, who complain that even the country’s main ring
road, Highway One, is now plagued by bandits.
Karim, a 42-year-old coach driver on the route from Kabul to Herat via
Kandahar, said there were robbers “everywhere”.
“Once they stopped my bus in Nimroz province and they robbed us all,"
he said. "They went through all our pockets and took everything.”
The banditry also provides the Taliban with influence since in rural
areas, people often turn to them rather than coalition forces for a
form of redress. Under their harsh system, murderers were publicly
executed by relatives of their victim and thieves had hands cut off.
Maj Gen Carter said that ensuring people were able to use key routes
through the country would from now on be a priority for coalition
forces.
"I think that up until relatively recently, probably the summer, we've
been very much focused on the insurgency," he said.
"What we are doing now, which is slightly different in terms of
approach, is that we are trying to protect the population where he or
she lives, and trying to ensure their freedom of movement on some of
the key arteries between where they live."
To improve the security offered, Maj Gen Carter said forces will use
the Afghan police and military "to the best of their capabilities".
Diplomats have warned of problems training up the local police from a
pool of frequently drug-addicted and often corrupt officers.
But Maj Gen Carter insisted the problem had been a lack of funding
which will now be redressed. As part of the US-led surge planned by
Nato, funds for training the police and Army are set to rise from
£2.2bn to £4.5bn next year.
"If we had invested [in the Afghan police] in the way we invested in
the Afghan army in 2002, my sense is we would have an institution that
we could be equally proud of," he said.
"The challenge we've got now is to create, predominantly in the South,
a Pashtun police force that is respected as the army is nationally. We
have to do that as, ultimately, it will be a local police force. It
will be the force that will make the local population secure.
"I'm not denying it's going to be a challenge, but it's a challenge
we're going to embrace and it's a challenge that a lot of people are
prepared to make an effort to achieve."
* A soldier was killed instantly while fighting the Taliban when his
vehicle struck a mine left over from the Russian-Afghan war, an
inquest heard yesterday.
Sergeant Lee Johnson, 33, was commanding a Vector six-wheel armoured
vehicle which exploded as it was making its way up a steep desert
slope in December 2007.
bademiyansubhanallah
By Nathan Hodge December 2, 2009 | 2:07 pm
The new troops headed to Afghanistan are important, sure. But unless
those troops can get around the country without getting blown up, this
latest surge is going nowhere fast. Which is why the Pentagon is in
the middle of a crash program to build and ship to Afghanistan a new
generation of bomb-resistant off-road vehicle, equipped with
everything from composite armor to “electronic keels.” If all goes to
plan, they should have around 1,000 of the high-tech rides in the
country by the end of the year.
Right after the start of the original surge in Iraq, the Pentagon
launched a breakneck effort to send thousands and thousands of hulking
Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles to that warzone. The
vehicles were credited with saving countless lives. But the rides are
too bulky for Afghanistan’s rough terrain and primitive roadways. The
suspensions took a beating, and the top-heavy MRAPs were prone to
rollover. The Pentagon launched a quickfire challenge for a lighter,
more nimble blastproof ride, dubbed the MRAP All Terrain Vehicle
(clunky acronym: M-ATV).
Oshkosh Corp. won the contest, and snared the first delivery order in
late June. The winning design was a 4×4 built around the chassis of
the Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement, a seven-ton truck that had
already seen service in Afghanistan. It shares the TAK-4 independent
suspension system with the MTVR. The new vehicle also has a battle-
tested composite armor kit designed by Plasan — that’s an Israeli
firm, owned by a kibbutz. The same company also makes armor for the
MTVR.
Even though it’s considered a “light” MRAP, the M-ATV is still a
beast: It has a curb weight of just under 25,000 lb, and it’s powered
by a 370-hp Caterpillar C7. It seats four passengers, plus one gunner;
and has a central tire inflation system with four terrain settings to
improve traction on unimproved roads. It’s not exactly a speed demon —
going to zero to 30 miles per hour in 11 seconds. But that’s not bad
for a thing weighing twelve tons. Max speed is 65 miles per hour; max
range is 320 miles. Each one costs about $1.4 million, fully loaded.
That includes inside each vehicle an “electronic keel,” based on a
gigabit LAN, that networks together all sorts of mil-gadgets — from
sniper detectors to “blue force trackers” that plot friendly vehicles
on a digital map. It should tie together any “Internet Protocol (IP)
based weapon, communication module or sensor package without
additional integration costs,” according to the manufacturer. Think of
it as a giant USB hub for war-making.
To get the high-priority vehicles to Afghanistan, the Air Force has to
ship them on C-17 Globemaster III heavy cargo aircraft.
Thus far, the company says it has been delivering ahead of schedule:
In a recent news release, Oshkosh said it was on track to meet the
December target of 1,000 vehicles, with production levels remaining
that high through April 2010.
All told 6,219 of the new vehicles are on order. In a recent visit to
the Oshkosh plant in Wisconsin, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
praised workers for delivering the M-ATV so rapidly.
“In July, this factory produced 46 M-ATVs,” he said. “Last month, that
figure rose to more than 380. And November output is expected to
exceed 660 vehicles, all toward meeting a total military requirement
of more than 6,600. Peak production of 1,000 vehicles per month starts
next month.”
Added Gates: “The wars don’t stop for the holidays, and neither will
you.”
– Nathan Hodge and Noah Shachtman
[Photo: DoD]
chhotemianinshallah
By KATHY GANNON (AP) – 7 hours ago
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — Nazia is an 8-year-old in tattered secondhand
clothes whose name means "hope."
For her, hope comes from the thriving business that employs her mother
and 199 other women who sew embroidered clothing, tablecloths and
shawls under the label "Kandahar Treasure." They proudly call their
collection Kandahar's first designer label.
For women once denied access to both schools and jobs under a
fanatical Taliban regime, the enterprise is a chance to earn money and
support their families in a conservative part of Afghanistan where it
can still be dangerous for women to own businesses or even work for
them.
"This country needs people to stand up on their own two feet and work
and earn their living," says 33-year-old founder Rangina Hamidi, an
Afghan-American who packed up everything and left her home in
Stoneridge, Virginia, to return to Kandahar.
Hamidi was born in Kandahar just three years before the Soviet Union
invaded Afghanistan in 1979. Her family fled and lived as refugees in
neighboring Pakistan before finding refuge in the United States.
Hamidi's first foray back to Kandahar was with a nonprofit group that
sought to help women. But eventually she found half her time was spent
writing proposals and briefs to get grant money to run the charity.
"I couldn't focus on design or quality," she says. "I got tired of
depending on the aid world."
In 2006 and 2007, as security deteriorated, money became more
difficult to get. That's when Hamidi decided to go private and
launched Kandahar Treasure on a small budget of a few thousand
dollars. Today she sells her handmade items in Kandahar, to the Afghan
government and for the past three years at the Santa Fe Folk Art
Market.
Even now, only 20 of the women Hamidi employs come into the office to
work. The rest work out of their homes and live in the districts
surrounding Kandahar city, several of them largely under the control
of the Taliban and too dangerous to visit these days.
"Instead of me going to the villages, the women now select an old
woman who will come into the city with their finished products and
return with fresh orders," she says.
The amount of money the women who work at home earn depends on their
output, but on average it is about 1,600 Afghanis ($32) a month, says
Hamidi. However, most homes will have two or more women sewing for
Kandahar Treasure.
The women who come into the center every day earn on average 5,000
Afghanis ($100) a month — the equivalent or more than a teacher would
earn.
Hamidi looks around at the women sitting on the carpeted floor, each
creating her own piece of art on a separate swatch of cloth.
Hamidi expected the women to abhor the Taliban. But she found some
among her sewing circle longed for their return. Others say
disappointment and insecurity have blunted their frustration with the
Taliban, whose edicts did not stray too far from restrictions placed
today on most women living in deeply rural Afghanistan.
"Women here cannot go out without being fully covered. It is against
our culture, our religion," says Namgullah, one of the women. "They
weren't here long enough to bring schools for girls. They had no
money, eventually they would have brought schools for girls but under
Islam."
The women speak quickly, each with an opinion and all wanting to be
heard, as their fingers move rhythmically. They speak of politics,
their government, their religion, the Taliban.
"I wear a burqa (because) I am afraid. I am afraid of the police who
are corrupt and ugly and of the thugs and criminals who now call
themselves Taliban," says a round-faced Fariba, who is Hamidi's
production manager.
Habibi, an elderly woman who provides the only income for her family,
laments the lawlessness and insecurity in Afghanistan. She walks a
dangerous route every day to reach the sewing room, and with every
step she is afraid.
"For us the big problem is the security. It is the No. 1 problem.
During the Taliban the security was better. I could come out and I
wasn't worried about being killed," she says. "But now even the men
are afraid."
One of the women sitting on the carpeted floor is Nazia's mother,
Parveen. Barely 34 years old and raising seven children, Parveen sews
tiny mirrors on a piece of cloth that would eventually be a wedding
dress.
She is married to a drug addict who doesn't work. While the Taliban
ruled, Parveen couldn't work. The family was destitute. "I was ashamed
because our families would bring food and clothing for us, like we
were beggars. I used to hide in my room," she says.
"Now I tell my family to take their charity and give it to the beggars
on the street," says Parveen, as Nazia slips her hand through her
mother's. "I don't need it. I earn money."
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
This Nov. 2, 2009 photo shows Nazia, 8, left, whose names means
"hope," sitting next to her mother at a small sewing center for women,
run by Afghan-American Rangina Hamidi, in Kandahar, Afghanistan. For
Nazia, hope has come through the thriving business that employs her
mother and 199 other women. The women tailors sew the latest in
embroidered men's and women's clothes, tablecloths and shawls under
their own label: "Kandahar Treasure." They proudly call their
collection Kandahar's first designer label. (AP Photo/Allauddin Khan)
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hbe3Fyp30a7q5vuJCvUbqzLePRugD9CCVLH00
bademiyansubhanallah
Last week, President Obama announced a renewed commitment to train
Afghan troops and strengthen the elected government, among other
goals. What's the best way for U.S. forces to nurture leadership among
Afghan forces? Is it possible to teach leadership across cultures? Are
officials in Hamid Karzai's government too corrupt to exercise real
leadership?
By On Leadership
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Michael Maccoby is an anthropologist and psychoanalyst globally
recognized as an expert on leadership. He is the author of "The
Leaders We Need: And What Makes Us Follow."
Although I am not persuaded by President Obama's strategy of sending
more troops to Afghanistan, I respect his carefully considered
judgment and, of course, hope that the strategy succeeds in
strengthening the anti-Taliban forces. Clearly, the better we are able
to develop Afghan leadership that supports our strategy, the more
likely we'll be able to exit the country according to Obama's
timetable.
However, I do not think it is a matter of teaching leadership to
Afghans. We can teach needed management skills, but we need to find
leaders with followers. We should avoid putting people in leadership
positions who tell us what we want to hear but have no followers.
Doing this got us into trouble in Iraq. But Afghan leaders who oppose
the Taliban or who are able to neutralize them will likely be tribal
leaders who favor followers in their identity groups.
We need to be able to differentiate the honest leaders from the
corrupt who use their power to exploit people not part of the tribal
group. This will not be easy. It can be accomplished if these leaders
recognize that they will gain broader support only by using their
authority to establish and sustain a just community.
Montgomery Meigs, a retired U.S. Army general, has commanded U.S. and
NATO forces overseas and is a visiting professor at Georgetown
University.
Developing leaders also means showing by example the behaviors and
values one wants to instill. Regardless of culture, individuals accept
teachers who appreciate the dilemmas they face and who stand with them
when they are at risk.
Adhering to several basic rules also helps to keep this exchange
alive:
-- Don't ask too much of a counterpart. Sooner or later, he must go
home. If in the eyes of the tribe or family, he has brought dishonor
on or created an unacceptable inconvenience for them, his life and
that of his family are at risk.
-- Never pass judgment. Keep the game going. Persuade, demonstrate by
example, encourage, but never generate a level of emotion that
suggests dishonor or loss of face.
-- Never make a promise in the heat of the moment. When a promise is
made, always deliver.
-- Be consistent. If one stands for certain values and behaviors, one
must live by them in the eyes of one's counterpart. In Gen. Stan
McChrystal's words, "perceptions derive from actions."
Finally, to support the soldiers and Marines who perform this
dangerous, painstaking task, we must understand that no political
accommodation or compromise, no acceptance of new values and loyalties
is possible without the development of a safe and secure environment.
We must provide the boots on the ground to make that movement toward a
secure environment a reality in Afghan society. We must also take
"exit" out of our declaratory strategy. Who will risk their survival
and that of their family in siding with an outsider who promises much
but whose intent is clearly to leave on his schedule?
Benjamin W. Heineman Jr. is an expert on business ethics and a senior
fellow at Harvard University's schools of law and government. He has
served as general counsel for General Electric and as assistant
secretary for policy at the U.S. Department of Health, Education and
Welfare (now Health and Human Services.)
Why do we think we can change the complex Afghan culture when our
"outsider" attempts to influence it -- including billions of dollars
in assistance -- have, to date, been unsuccessful? Gen. McChrystal, in
his now-famous report, said: "We face not only a growing and resilient
insurgency: but there is a crisis of confidence among Afghans -- in
both their government and the international community -- that
undermines our credibility and emboldens the insurgents."
President Obama was silent about these profound questions of culture
and motivation in his West Point speech. He was silent, too, about a
single historical example where such a dramatic reversal in culture,
motivation and leadership has taken place in such a short period of
time in such a difficult place. (Is Iraq illustrative or not? The
president avoided any analogies and only talked about six hard,
controversial years there.)
Until the administration provides detailed answers to these basic
questions about how cultural change and motivation of leaders can
occur in 18 months, the Afghan speech will surely be seen as a
political compromise, carefully crafted in good faith in Washington,
to escape from the bad policy options of long-term commitment of more
troops and treasure or short-term continuation of the status quo. But,
in its haste to enter and exit, it will not be seen as a realistic
response to the complex, intractable leadership (and many other)
problems in Afghanistan, which have vexed foreign forces for decades.
For many reasons, including the sacrifices of our soldiers and the
good of the nation, I profoundly hope I am wrong.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/04/AR2009120405077.html
bademiyansubhanallah
In Afghanistan, we have a plan -- but that's not the same as a
strategy
By Eliot A. Cohen
Sunday, December 6, 2009
It is impolite, but probably true, to say that when President Obama
announced in March that he had a "comprehensive, new strategy" for
victory in Afghanistan, he had no precise idea what he was talking
about. In Washington parlance, the word "strategy" usually means "to-
do list" or at best "action plan." As for "comprehensive" and "new,"
they usually mean merely "better than whatever my predecessors did."
So now, even after his speech Tuesday night at West Point, does the
president really have a strategy for the Afghan war? What is a
strategy anyway, in a war without fronts, one that might drag on for
decades and that shades off into banditry at one end and terrorism at
another?
Strategy is the art of choice that binds means with objectives. It is
the highest level of thinking about war, and it involves priorities
(we will devote resources here, even if that means starving operations
there), sequencing (we will do this first, then that) and a theory of
victory (we will succeed for the following reasons). That is the job
of wartime presidents; it's why they have the title commander in
chief.
Obama set out his objectives for Afghanistan, focused on thwarting al-
Qaeda, and enumerated some of the means, chiefly a 30,000-troop, 18-
month surge. But what about the hard part: setting priorities,
establishing a sequencing and laying out a theory of victory?
By supporting Gen. Stanley McChrystal's recommendation to knock the
Taliban back and protect the population, by devoting additional
resources to development, and by surging civilians as well as
soldiers, Obama has made his choice: counterinsurgency warfare, or
COIN, as insiders like to call it. And counterinsurgency warfare has a
theory of strategy, as preached and practiced by a relatively small
group of soldiers, historians and social scientists.
The COIN sect has its heroes -- from British guerrilla adventurer T.E.
Lawrence to legendary Vietnam adviser John Paul Vann to Gen. David
Petraeus. It also has its canon, written by British veterans of Malaya
such as Robert Thompson, French participants in the Algerian war such
as David Galula and more recently American veterans of Vietnam such as
Bing West. It exhibits, at least in the Western world, a remarkable
consensus about strategy.
Counterinsurgency experts agree with McChrystal: Start with security
for the population. Without security, neither governance nor
development can move forward. The counterinsurgent must keep the
sequencing tight; after the "clear" phase must come "hold" and
"build," often in the same operation. In counterinsurgency, the
dominant force wins all the firefights but loses if it does not stay
to administer effectively.
The theory of victory lies in a competition for effective rule and
legitimacy -- local political outcomes that are enabled by, yet
distressingly independent of, military success. If you fight on behalf
of a local ally, the key to success is building up your host's forces
and capacity for governance, not your own.
A straightforward enough strategic language, one might think. Indeed,
anyone can (and in Washington pretty much now does) learn enough to
speak pidgin COIN, as it were. In the 1960s, the U.S. military studied
the problem carefully, and the resulting manuals and surveys retain
remarkable value. After Vietnam, however, counterinsurgency dropped
from the curricula of war colleges and all but niche specialties
within the armed services, such as U.S. Army Special Forces. In the
latest Iraq war, some commanders -- H.R. McMaster, Petraeus and James
Mattis to name just three -- applied the old ideas, adjusting for new
technology and local circumstances. Now McChrystal's concept for
Afghanistan reflects the knowledge relearned in Iraq.
However, a senior official slinging COIN argot ("oil spot tactics,"
"combined action platoons" and the like) at meetings far from the
fight is one thing. An infantry captain plunked down in the mountains
of Nurestan, figuring out how to control rugged terrain with a few
American platoons, a larger force of questionable Afghan soldiers and
police, and a mistrustful, war-weary population is something very
different. With counterinsurgency, as with all military matters,
implementing doctrine proves much more difficult than discussing it.
Perhaps in response to the strategy's newfound salience, several new
books seek to study or further explain counterinsurgency, with varying
degrees of success. James Arnold's "Jungle of Snakes" is useful to
learn the fundamentals, competently summarizing past counterinsurgency
campaigns in the Philippines, Algeria, Malaya and Vietnam, but
offering few striking insights. Read it if you want to learn the
basics of the American CORDS (Civil Operations and Revolutionary
Development Support) program in Vietnam, for example, or learn who
tortured whom in the Battle of Algiers.
Meanwhile, the Rand Corp. has recently released its own COIN study,
"Reconstruction Under Fire." Rand has long provided much of the
government's semiofficial thinking about counterinsurgency, and during
the 1950s and 1960s it published some remarkable works. But this new
book typifies much of the contemporary Rand product: brief, lots of
bullets and diagrams, thumbnail sketches of conflicts, and a
conclusion pleading for further research.
History, more than theory, offers a better guide to COIN. David Ucko's
"The New Counterinsurgency Era" is a dense, scholarly and useful work
on how the American military adapted to counterinsurgency during the
Iraq war, both on the ground and in the classrooms of Fort
Leavenworth, where most of the Army's thinking gets done. The book
captures the Army's self-inflicted amnesia about counterinsurgency in
the wake of Vietnam and the difficult steps needed to relearn old
lessons.
In this light, the much-heralded Army and Marine Corps
counterinsurgency manual, published in December 2006 and influenced
most by Petraeus, deserved its status as a landmark document. But in
many ways it merely recovered older wisdom. What has made it so
difficult to put these straightforward and broadly accepted strategic
concepts into effect in America's current wars?
Organizational preference, for one thing. The U.S. military, like most
armies, orients itself to conventional warfare: direct, bloody and
waged if possible in a desert or some other wilderness. Historically,
conventional warfare dominates military training and education; a well-
trained soldier's first and overwhelming instinct is to close with the
enemy and kill or capture him. That's laudable when confronting the
Wehrmacht, but less so when you're fighting the Taliban. The strategic
first principles of counterinsurgency -- control and protect the
population rather than chase bad guys, build your ally and give him
the credit, remember that it's all about governance, not just tactical
victories -- require painful relearning, from generals to sergeants.
Not all can adapt or have the qualities needed. Mark Moyar's "A
Question of Command" explores this problem, and this brilliant young
scholar of the Vietnam War reminds us that it takes a special kind of
soldier -- reflective, patient, creative -- to lead counterinsurgency
operations.
It takes a special kind of civilian, too. Todd Greentree, the author
of "Crossroads of Intervention," is an active diplomat who
participated in American counterinsurgency efforts in El Salvador in
the 1980s. (Full disclosure: He wrote this book while a fellow in my
strategic studies program at Johns Hopkins University.) His book
weaves together personal knowledge and scholarly study and reminds us
of forgotten conflicts in Central America that still have much teach
us about small wars. As miserably unpopular as the Salvadoran conflict
was, and as doomed as many considered the U.S. effort there, it
succeeded in defeating a communist insurgency that once stood on the
verge of success.
If El Salvador is one of our obscure wars, then the one never to be
forgotten, the one that looms over politicians and generals, the one
that pundits raid shamelessly for supposed lessons, is Vietnam. The
balanced and well-researched "Vietnam Declassified" by Thomas Ahern, a
former CIA operations officer, describes the agency's role in Vietnam.
But, like so much history of that war, it barely deals with the
Vietnamese; it's all about us. And herein lies the greatest weakness
of the COIN literature: It often lacks deep knowledge of the other
side.
Of course, insurgents rarely keep archives (hard to do in rice paddies
and caves), and the Western experts usually lack the time or
inclination to master the languages their opponents speak, whether
Tagalog, Pashto or Vietnamese. Most contemporary anthropologists abhor
the idea of working for the military, but the shrewdest
counterinsurgents turn to that discipline for insights. Some, like
Australian soldier David Kilcullen, whom I hired to work in the State
Department, have doctorates in the field. Without hard thinking about
and intricate knowledge of the other side of the hill,
counterinsurgency can become a kind of military art form, dangerously
abstracted from real life.
In every such war, the counterinsurgents learn the need for local
knowledge: language first, and from it, all they can discover about
authority structures, grievances, customs and local politics. The
broad principles melt away because, as one colonel told me in 2008
while flying over eastern Afghanistan, the counterinsurgent soon
realizes that "it's a valley-by-valley war."
The kind of specific knowledge needed does not lend itself to
treatises, much less bestsellers. It requires the time and effort that
British political officers took to learn the ins and outs of Pashtun
tribes in the North-West Frontier province of India in the 19th
century. In a world of rotating military and diplomatic assignments,
three-month think tank projects and moving on to the next hot topic,
it is difficult to develop that expertise.
Making COIN work in real time, therefore, requires the right kinds of
practitioners, vast patience and local knowledge of a kind that is
difficult to build up and easily perishable in large organizations. As
Obama will discover, even setting the strategy seems easy by
comparison.
Eliot A. Cohen is a professor at Johns Hopkins University's School of
Advanced International Studies and the author of "Supreme Command:
Soldiers, Statesmen and Wartime Leadership." He was State Department
counselor from 2007 to 2009, advising on counterinsurgency issues.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/04/AR2009120402602.html
bademiyansubhanallah
By David S. Broder
Sunday, December 6, 2009
On the same evening last week that President Obama went to West Point
to outline his plans to send 30,000 more U.S. troops to fight the
Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, the four Massachusetts Democratic
candidates hoping to win Ted Kennedy's Senate seat met in a televised
debate.
All four -- including the favorite in Tuesday's primary, state
Attorney General Martha Coakley -- said that they opposed the
president's decision to escalate. Referring to Obama's promise to
begin bringing an unspecified number of the "surge" forces home by
July 2011, Coakley said, "It seems to me it's impractical, given what
we think the mission is, the number of troops we're sending over.
"We really won't be able to be finished in 18 months and start an exit
strategy there."
The rejection of Obama's argument by the leading candidate in an
overwhelmingly Democratic state shows how much the president has
failed to convince his fellow partisans that he is right about the
biggest national security policy decision of his tenure.
It is symptomatic of a bigger problem; Coakley and her rivals are
emblematic of widespread Democratic dissent on Afghanistan.
Listen, for example, to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, normally the lead
voice for Obama's programs on Capitol Hill. When asked at her Thursday
news conference about her pre-speech warning that there was little
support for escalation on the Democratic side of the aisle, she
reiterated that view and added that she wanted more briefings on
Obama's rationale and plans before members have to vote on funding for
the war.
Carefully avoiding any words that could be interpreted as support for
Obama's policy, she said, "I think we have to handle it with care,
listen to what they present and then members will make their decision.
Some have already made their decisions, and they have been outspoken
on the subject."
Indeed, many of her closest allies in the House, such as Rep. Rosa
DeLauro of Connecticut, have declared that they will oppose paying for
Obama's program. "It will be very difficult for me to support funding
for an increased military commitment to fight the Taliban and various
insurgent groups that are bringing instability to Afghanistan and
Pakistan, particularly when we do not appear to have a credible
partner in the Karzai government and are trying to bring stability to
one of the most corrupt countries in the world," DeLauro said.
That was not the universal reaction. Centrist and conservative
Democrats and those who serve on the Armed Services Committee tended
to be more supportive of Obama's decision. Next year, when the
additional troops are in the field and the first bills come due, there
will probably be enough Democrats willing to join the vast majority of
Republicans in funding the Afghan surge.
But the lessons of a previous land war in Asia cannot be forgotten.
When Lyndon Johnson escalated in Vietnam, initially both Republicans
and Democrats gave him their support -- and public opinion was more
positive than it is now for Afghanistan.
The defections began on the Democratic left -- where the opposition to
Obama is most visible today -- and by the end, most Democrats and many
of the Republicans had abandoned Johnson to his political fate.
A president who wages a war supported mainly by his political foes and
opposed by large numbers of his own party runs a huge political risk.
Even if he prevails for a time, he pays a price: the loss of his most
loyal supporters.
Obama can rightfully claim that he made clear throughout his campaign
that he saw a vital need to fight on in Afghanistan. But he obviously
has not convinced many of his important followers as yet that they
should endorse his views. And nothing short of success on the
battlefield is likely to convince them that he is right.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/04/AR2009120403072.html
bademiyansubhanallah
Sunday, December 6, 2009
The Post solicited opinions on what the president should say when
accepting the Nobel Peace Prize on Thursday. Below are contributions
from Scott Keeter, Danielle Pletka, Strobe Talbott, Jessica Mathews,
Ed Rogers, Randy Scheunemann, Donna Brazile and Wangari Maathai.
SCOTT KEETER
Director of survey research at Pew Research Center
Hanging over President Obama's appearance in Oslo will be reminders
that a majority of the U.S. public does not think he deserves the
award, as well as the irony of accepting a peace prize just days after
announcing a major escalation in the Afghanistan war. But the
president's main challenge -- in the speech and long afterward -- will
be in persuading a skeptical American public that the world needs
robust leadership from the United States.
Although the Nobel committee said its decision was based on Obama's
efforts on disarmament and international dialogue, many observers saw
it as a prod for how he ought to conduct his foreign policy. And,
indeed, the publics of many of our allies say they expect Obama to be
more multilateral, to be fair in dealing with the Middle East and to
take significant steps to address climate change.
Yet the president's ability to meet these global expectations collides
with the reality that Americans are increasingly focused inward. New
Pew Research polling finds a sharp rise in isolationist and
unilateralist sentiment among the public. At the same time, there has
been a sharp decline over the past year in the percentage of Americans
who say there is solid evidence of global warming. And the public is,
at best, divided about Obama's Afghanistan policy, with the greatest
resistance among his political base.
DANIELLE PLETKA
Vice president of foreign and defense policy studies, American
Enterprise Institute
Pity President Obama, who, despite impressive attainments at a young
age and an apparent comfort with the cult of personality that
surrounds him, must surely be aware that he has done little yet to
earn any peace prize. Let us not unjustly prejudge him; he may one day
merit the prize, but that day will not be in 2009. So he should
acknowledge the honor bestowed and his unworthiness by dedicating the
prize to those who this year did so much to advance the cause of
peace.
There is no shortage of deserving candidates: the people of Iran, who
did their utmost to take back their nation; specifically, Neda Agha-
Soltan, the young woman who gave her life to speak her mind and whose
murder finally stirred the conscience of the Obama White House; or
Rebiya Kadeer, the president of the World Uighur Congress, a victim of
Mao's Cultural Revolution and a tribune of peaceful resistance and
hope for Muslims in communist China.
Perhaps, however, in light of the president's brave decision this week
to send 30,000 additional troops to carry out his Afghanistan war
strategy, Obama should say that he is accepting the prize on behalf of
the men and women of the United States military, who have done more to
keep the peace in this world than any other military and who sacrifice
every day not to their own greater glory or for pecuniary gain, but
for the Stars and Stripes that are beacons of peace and liberty year
in and year out, fools in Oslo notwithstanding.
STROBE TALBOTT
President of the Brookings Institution; deputy secretary of state,
1994-2001
President Obama will be receiving the world's most prestigious peace
prize nine days after announcing his decision to escalate an
increasingly unpopular war. He can either avoid this inconvenient fact
altogether, mention it in passing while focusing on more Nobel-
friendly subjects, or tackle the irony head-on. He can do that by
using the bully pulpit to explain why he must also use the big stick
-- two phrases made famous by the first American president to win the
prize, Teddy Roosevelt.
Obama's message would be that the violence breeding in renegade
regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan threatens world peace to a degree
that justifies -- and, in his view, demands -- the violence of
coordinated international military action.
This is not what the Nobel Committee expected -- or wanted -- to hear
from Obama when it awarded him the prize in October. In fact, it's
similar to what George W. Bush might have said in the unlikely event
that he had gone to Oslo after invading Iraq. Indeed, Obama is getting
the prize in no small measure because he's the un-Bush. But while
Obama inherited the Afghan mess from Bush, it's his mess now. He, like
Bush, has bet his presidency on a war. He needs to use every
opportunity, including the one coming Thursday, to raise confidence
that he will succeed where Bush failed -- and that he has a powerful
rationale for asking other nations to help.
JESSICA MATHEWS
President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
President Obama's message in Oslo should be what the United States
ought to expect of itself -- and of others.
Obama's toughest foreign-policy challenges in 2010 lie at home. He has
to sell and sustain a renewed commitment to the war in Afghanistan,
bring Congress to meaningful action on climate change and usher
critical arms control and nuclear test ban treaties through the
Senate. So, while a Nobel Peace Prize seems the occasion to address an
international audience, he must use this opportunity to make the case
to his domestic constituency on what the United States must do to
confront the three great present challenges to world peace: nuclear
proliferation, climate change and the allure of radical Islam.
To be convincing at home, he must also be plain about the limits on
what the world should expect from us. U.S. leadership is plainly
necessary, but these are global struggles. The United States must act
to restrain carbon emissions, and so must India. Washington has to
rebalance its policies to help forge an end to the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, but Arab leaders bear an equal responsibility to adjust
theirs. The U.S. commitment to put out the fires that threaten the
world in Pakistan and Afghanistan can succeed only with the help of
NATO partners and a willingness by China to shoulder an equal burden
there. U.S. efforts to avoid a nuclear Iran must be matched by
Russia's if they are to work.
ED ROGERS
White House staffer to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush; chairman of
BGR Group
From a domestic political standpoint, accepting the Nobel Peace Prize
in Oslo is an exercise in damage control. Since it would be
preposterous for the president to use his speech to try to legitimize
the idea that the decision was based on his personal merit, this is a
political salvage operation. Time to cut your losses, make some
lemonade, etc.
He should say, "I can't accept this, but America can. America's
sacrifice for world peace deserves recognition, and those Americans
who have died for the cause of peace deserve it more than others. I
will place this award on a permanent display at Arlington National
Cemetery. I will direct that there be no mention of me or my
administration on its presentation."
After that he should never mention it again, lest it remind people of
the embarrassing collective swoon that the world did for Obama. Sort
of like how my generation feels about our dress and behavior during
the disco era. It never happened; let's move on.
RANDY SCHEUNEMANN
President of the consulting firm Orion Strategies; served as director
of foreign policy and national security for McCain-Palin 2008
When he stands up in Oslo, I can only hope that the president will
say: "I stand before you today honored to be the recipient of this
prize, yet humbled because I am not deserving. I realize this award is
aspirational, and I choose to accept this prize by giving credit to
some of my predecessors who made great contributions to the cause of
peace. Ronald Reagan took office at a time of malaise and economic
recession, yet his vision and policies laid the foundation for the
peaceful end of the Cold War. George H.W. Bush shepherded the peaceful
reunification of Germany and liberated Kuwait. Bill Clinton ended the
bloodshed in Bosnia and stopped the killing in Kosovo.
"My presidency is still young. When it is over, I will have earned
this prize if I can cite contributions as lasting -- if my policies
have secured peace, security and freedom for the Afghan people; if
Iran has not acquired nuclear weapons; if North Korea is
denuclearized; and if Israel and Palestine live side by side with
security for their peoples. Finally, I accept this award on behalf of
the men and women of America's armed forces who have contributed so
much to peace and security throughout the world."
DONNA BRAZILE
Author and political commentator; manager of Al Gore's 2000
presidential campaign
At this moment, when so many people have no interest in peace, I would
like to see the president take this opportunity to inspire people
around the globe by outlining his vision for diplomacy and peacemaking
in this century. I'd suggest something like: "Ladies and gentleman, I
am honored and humbled by this prestigious prize, one that has been
bestowed upon far greater visionaries and leaders than me; men and
women who gained, always for others, freedom, peace, equality, human
rights and justice.
"Today, I accept this prize on behalf of those dedicated to seeking
peace, from Somalia to the Middle East. I accept it on behalf of those
who have joined together to protect our planet against manmade
dangers, from climate change to nuclear proliferation. And I accept
this prize on behalf of those who seek an end to human suffering in
Sudan, in Burma and especially in the war-torn North Kivu province of
the Democratic Republic of Congo, where rape is cheaper than bullets
but just as deadly, and has left 30 percent of the 200,000 women and
girls assaulted there infected with HIV.
"This prize, this year, was given not to one man but to all of
mankind. It is our call to action, and we must answer it with a global
response to work together and believe once more that we all share
responsibility for this planet and for one another."
WANGARI MAATHAI
2004 Nobel Peace Prize laureate; founder of Kenya's Green Belt
Movement, a grass-roots organization that aims to reduce poverty and
conserve the environment through planting trees
What President Obama should say: "The world needs to move toward an
understanding of peace and security that is not based on national
interests and national security but, rather, on compassion and
empathy. In this vision, individuals are able to meet their basic
needs, enjoy basic freedoms and live in a clean and healthy
environment.
"Throughout the world, ordinary people risk their lives for these
values against all forms of aggression -- often in vain. This prize
inspires hope in millions of people, and I am honored to be its
recipient at this time in our history. I pledge to put the pursuit of
human security at the forefront of the policies of my administration.
To realize our shared vision of world peace, I will need the support
and cooperation of friends, allies and fellow citizens."
judithod wrote:
Perhaps Obama can wax eloquently on the "beer summit" that he not only
hosted but also "inspired" by his ill-considered, prejudicial remarks.
And perhaps Obama could point to his buddy Holder's pandering to the
New Black Panthers in failing to persecute them for voter
intimidation.
Finally, Obama could explain how he and Holder are co-conspirators in
undercutting the U.S. judicial system by trying KSM in a criminal
court.
12/5/2009 3:30:36 PM
Recommend (1)
Hairless wrote:
I get a kick out of people who say that Mr. Obama should show some
integrity and decline the award. That would be news as Mr. Obama has
never given the indication that he either posses integrity or
understands the concept of integrity.
12/5/2009 3:21:19 PM
Recommend (1)
bsallamack wrote:
Why are the experts concerned.
The President will simply do the normal with another campaign event
for reelection.
12/5/2009 3:20:50 PM
Recommend (1)
csforst wrote:
Even though I did nothing to deserve this prize, I am grateful for the
photo-op. I am an empty shell who feeds off photo-ops and
speechmaking, so this prize and opportunity to be on stage makes me
feel very good. But besides that, I don't have a clue why you think I
should have the Nobel Peace Prize, but then again, you gave the prize
to Yasser Arafat so I guess anybody can win it. Even if I am expanding
the war in Afghanistan while I am making this speech.
12/5/2009 2:17:26 PM
Recommend (2)
mgd1 wrote:
As do most Americans, I agree this award makes Obama into a great big
phoney.
I like him a whole lot less as it reinforces that he is gifted awards
and positions that he has not earned and he does not deserve.
12/5/2009 2:11:12 PM
Recommend (3)
JoeNTx wrote:
Obama's speech, when delivered, will probally be one of his best and
excerpts from it will be placed in living rooms all over the world for
all time.
12/5/2009 2:07:27 PM
Recommend (0)
gracie-mansion wrote:
For crying out loud,President Obama was rewarded because of his
approach to change our complex world in civility.
All this nonsense that he hasn't done anything yet...oh yes,this is a
wake up call for his great efforts to change America's attitude to the
world.
I will announce it once again:BAM IS THE WORLD.
12/5/2009 1:45:08 PM
Recommend (1)
deepthroat21 wrote:
"Against impossible odds".
.. "Out of nothing".
........ "Hope".....
... This "award" reminds us of it. A dark clouded future's unrelenting
"search" for more Peace. A mostly thankless "job".
12/5/2009 1:40:24 PM
Recommend (0) Report Abuse Discussion Policy
deepthroat21 wrote:
Hardly anyone ever gets thanked for trying to preempt a major problem.
Financial, war, health care, etc.
... I believe our "police" force in Afghanistan is doing just that
along with NATO troops as well. In Norway of course, they have in
living memory what a pacifist policy can leaad to .... Foreign troop
occupation during World War Two.
... I believe that "our" actions in Afghanistan and elsewhere are
trying to prevent World War Three. ... and getting almost no thanks
for it .... except for this award.
... The prez' certainly has the "speak softly" part down pat. As to
the other part of that famous quote, how Big will that "stick" that
we're carryin' be?
12/5/2009 1:28:53 PM
Recommend (0)
aepelbaum wrote:
However, Gore accepted the same for also nothing, and didn't run for
the presidency, which this award obviously urged him to do. Nobel
Committee should have known better. But they didn't, so, nothing
matters.
12/5/2009 1:19:06 PM
Recommend (1)
aepelbaum wrote:
wmpowellfan, Obama never ever had any hint of communist agenda. Find
out first, please, what the meaning of this agenda is. All what Obama
and his family wanted is to become the American rich aristocracy.
12/5/2009 1:14:55 PM
Recommend (1)
aepelbaum wrote:
TonyV1, Lindsay Lohan didn't escalate Afghan war, so, she certainly
deserves this prize more than our Commander-In-Chief.
12/5/2009 1:11:12 PM
Recommend (4)
aepelbaum wrote:
It is always the option to decline this award(any award, I think),
pattr1. Actually when Kissinger was awarded peace prize together with
Vietnamese official (don't remeber his name)for USA-Vietnam peace
treaty, this Vietnamese guy declined this award. So, there was the
precedent, and Obama could have chosen this way, especially knowing
that he intended to escalate Afghan war. Shameful story, and very much
so.
12/5/2009 1:07:54 PM
Recommend (3)
TonyV1 wrote:
WHAT SHOULD OBAMA SAY IN HIS NOBEL PRIZE SPEECH?
How about, "I deserve this award about as much Lindsay Lohan."
12/5/2009 12:37:06 PM
Recommend (4)
wmpowellfan wrote:
The Nobel Peace Prize has been rendered meaningless with obama's
"winning" it. He is a fraud who has achieved nothing of honor -- he is
motivated only by ego and his communist agenda. The fact that he will
accept the award shows how little grace he has.
12/5/2009 12:36:33 PM
Recommend (2)
sarvenk63 wrote:
Every week or so WP pulls out this crap called "Topic A" & lets equal
number of liberals & conservtives BS. You can see conservatives like
Danielle Pletka from AEI aka Kennel for Conservative Pitbulls, spit
venom more than a king cobra. If these "conservatives" are allowed one
legal murder, they will head towards the White House.
While I agree that it is a premature for Obama to get a Nobel Prize,
he didn't ask for it. May be Nobel committee, is pleased with an
American President who is inclusive & respects other nations &
cultures, instead of calling them "evil empire", "axis of evil" etc.
12/5/2009 11:25:43 AM
Recommend (0)
RayOne wrote:
"I am sorry, I too fell for the global warming scam".
12/5/2009 11:15:52 AM
Recommend (4)
aepelbaum wrote:
How could it matter what he would say? Both facts are crystall clear
and unchangeable:1. He accepts Nobel Peace Prize, when he did exactly
nothing to deserve it;2. He is escalating Afghanstan war, against the
opinion of the majority of his constituents, who consider this war to
be unjust, artificial, bloody and very dangerous to American National
security. Under these circumstances, just ANYTHING he might choose to
say would sound hypocritical and very diminishing to both-his own
image, and the international image of the country he is representing.
Alas.
12/5/2009 10:58:11 AM
Recommend (4)
elgropo1 wrote:
Obama could express his gratitude and humility best by NOT giving a
speech.
12/5/2009 10:41:30 AM
Recommend (3)
battleground51 wrote:
B.O., if he is honest, would have to say that his Nobel prize was
based on global politics alone and that he does not deserve the thing.
B.O. would then come home and try to fix the mess he has created here.
12/5/2009 9:39:25 AM
Recommend (4)
rbprtman23 wrote:
I wonder how many innocent muslim women and children will die bcz of
the nobel peace winners decision to escalate a war and kill them. The
majority of the casualties will not be Taliban fighters but innocent
folks who happen to be in our way. Maybe the people who are holding
the obama/hitler signs are onto something we dont want to acknowledge.
12/5/2009 9:31:50 AM
Recommend (2)
uzs106 wrote:
He should take the price and give it to Hezbollah and Hamas. Yes, yes,
no, no, Obama got it but he does not deserve it. Good vs. bad is war.
12/5/2009 9:08:02 AM
Recommend (1)
2009frank wrote:
It would be nice if President Obama had the consensus building skills
to rally the world around peaceful values.
That he could gather the nations and actually persuade nations to
eliminate nuclear weapons, stand together against terror, to work
together to eliminate famine and poverty throughout the world.
Is it too idealistic to believe all nations want their children and
grandchildren to exist, to live in peace and security.
Right now, it appears the enemies of peace only understand force. The
nations do not see it in their national interest to band together
against violence. Wouldn't it be awesome if Obama turned out to be a
remarkable global consensus builder. That the world responded to a
leader of Hope and that Oslo was not just a place for wonderful
rhetoric? Wouldn't it be amazing that the world leaders stood with
this leader of hope and gave us a future other than mutual mass
destruction?
12/5/2009 9:05:28 AM
Recommend (1)
pattr1 wrote:
Why is the Nobel peace prize is his fault? Did he ever have the option
of refusing the award? And why should some one else comment on what he
should say?
12/5/2009 8:09:10 AM
Recommend (0)
manbearpig4 wrote:
"Thank you for the award but I recently learned you gave one to Al
Gore and he is a retard. Therefore I must decline it. I'm sure you
understand."
12/5/2009 7:42:51 AM
Recommend (7)
senatorgoofy wrote:
Obama's speech should be very short...
It should be:
Nobel committee, you screwed up in selecting me.
12/5/2009 7:26:35 AM
Recommend (8)
MPatalinjug wrote:
Yonkers, New York
05 December 2009
A great number of adult Americans, probably a clear majority, do not
now believe that the United States has a divine or secular mandate to
act as the Policeman of the World.
The United States has tried doing this herculean job since the end of
World War II. As a consequence, it has overstretched itself beyond
safe limits and the United States is now going through what Arnold
Toynbee characterizes as "a time of troubles." Very serious troubles.
She is now caught in the clutches of a very severe economic recession
which threatens to morph yet into "The Great Depression of 2008." The
U.S. Federal government has been running those gargantuan budget
deficits for so many years now so much so that the National Debt is at
the stratospheric level of $12+trillion.
The U.S. Defense budget for 2009 alone is now at a staggering $700
billion--and that's not counting what the U.S. has to spend in Iraq
and Afghanistan. This defense budget is more than half the military
budgets of all other nations on planet Earth! And it is more, much
more than the military budgets of the 26 other members of NATO.
Moreover, for many years now the U.S. has been incurring terribly huge
trade deficits with several countries, in particular with China and
Japan. China alone is reported to be holding around $800 billion in
U.S. IOUs, Japan another $600 billion. A consequence of this
unrestrained borrowing is that the U.S. dollar is fast losing its
value relative to the world's other major currencies.
In sum, the U.S. is no longer fitted to discharge the role of
Policeman of the World. Focusing on the U.S.'s serious domestic
problems--and there are many of these--should be its primary if not
exclusive conern now if it is not already a matter of national
survival.
Mariano Patalinjug
12/5/2009 5:20:08 AM
Recommend (2)
dottydo wrote:
Aprogressiveindependent wrote:
...
He should show some integrity and refuse the award.
/>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
True that
Integrity found in the mindset of the people they surround themselves
with?
Obama is not in the list with decent leaders with integrity like
Elliot Richardson - Freemason, Decorated soldier (Bronze Star & 2
Purple Hearts), he held many top governmental posts. As Attorney
General of the United States, he resigned in what became known as the
'Saturday Night Massacre' rather than carry out President Richard
Nixon's orders to fire Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox who
had been investigating White House wrongdoings.
Look for yourself, and see who is there.
http://www.masonicinfo.com/famous2.htm
12/5/2009 1:12:51 AM
Recommend (1)
dottydo wrote:
The NPD Sociopathic dual profiles are in full bloom now.
It cannot be covered up by handlers anymore that are trying to project
empathy images in the joker (Heath Ledger style).
Maybe he should just go for the show stopper white ELVIS bellbottom
bodysuit wide belt look.
Include the scarf, with sunglasses pulled down on the nose with the
lear sidelong look, and lip curl saying Thank you... Thank you very
much.
He is so sick that Congress should put him on medical stand down to
void his signatures. Open his intel and find out the full shell game.
People are angry that he is a fraud. I simply see an incurable profile
that leaves only victims in his wake.
12/5/2009 12:53:29 AM
Recommend (3)
Aprogressiveindependent wrote:
Leaders of countries at unnecessary wars, intervening in other
nations' civil wars should be among the last persons considered for
any peace awards. A nobel peace prize for Obama is a mockery of what
the nobel peace prize is supposed to represent and discredits the
prize entirely.
Obama deserves a peace prize as much as Nixon or Bush II. He should
show some integrity and refuse the award.
12/5/2009 12:13:14 AM
Recommend (8)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/04/AR2009120403489.html
bademiyansubhanallah
By Colbert I. King
Saturday, December 5, 2009
The slurping sound you may have heard after President Obama's speech
at West Point was yours truly once again demonstrating his trust in a
leader by drinking the Kool-Aid. This time, however, I didn't chug-a-
lug as I did after then-Secretary of State Colin Powell's Feb. 5,
2003, presentation to the U.N. Security Council on Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction.
I swallowed every drop back then because I thought it inconceivable
that Powell, one of the country's most respected public officials, a
former top military commander tempered by Vietnam experience and
sensitive to the importance of personal credibility, would present to
the world a case on weapons of mass destruction that could prove to be
bogus. But it happened.
Sobered by that experience, I stopped short of going bottoms-up with
Obama on Tuesday night.
I did sample the White House Kool-Aid, though, because -- here I go
again -- it is inconceivable to me that Obama, a cautious, thoughtful
leader who presciently opposed the Iraq war, would, after months of
painstaking review of the situation in Afghanistan, decide on a course
that leads America to military, financial and political disaster.
Still, this time I left a lot of Kool-Aid in my glass. Minutes after
Obama's speech it was clear to me that there's nothing like the feel
of watching him deliver it.
Gone were the grand auditorium, the uniformed cadets, the military
brass and Cabinet members. Gone, too, the applause.
Left behind were reality without rhetoric and the message of the
night: not to worry. "After 18 months," declared Obama, "our troops
will begin to come home."
Hence the halt in my Kool-Aid consumption.
The Obama administration would have us believe that in all of a year
and a half, tens of thousands of U.S. troops will be mobilized and
sent to Afghanistan, where they will join other forces and in that
time deny al-Qaeda a haven, reverse the Taliban's momentum and reduce
its ability to overthrow the Afghanistan government, strengthen the
capacity of Afghan security forces so they can fend for themselves and
stabilize neighboring Pakistan.
All in the time it takes a newborn to become a toddler.
I never made it above the rank of first lieutenant in the Army, and
even then I was commissioned in the Adjutant General's Corps. A
seasoned warrior I was not.
Still, I am hard-pressed to understand why al-Qaeda, a slaughtering
group of extremists, and that brazenly ruthless movement called the
Taliban would stick around for the next 18 months, making themselves a
vastly outnumbered, living sacrifice to U.S. and allied forces, when
all they seemingly have to do is hide out until we're supposed to
leave?
I'm equally mystified how, in that same time frame, we are going to
bring agriculture to the poppy fields; get tens of thousands of
Afghans into the fight on our side; and convert Afghan ministries,
governors and local chieftains into symbols of corruption-free zones.
But then, I'm not a general -- or a member of Obama's war council,
privy to inside information.
Getting nuclear-armed Pakistan to stay in the hunt for terrorist
havens on both sides of its border is an even greater challenge that
Obama aims to pin down by 2011.
Winning the hearts and minds of Pakistanis isn't my strong suit; so,
every good wish, Mr. President.
Still, I might have consumed a bit more Kool-Aid were it not for the
haunting feeling that the rest of the world is willing to hold our
coat while we do the
fighting.
Obama told the cadets at West Point that we are joined in Afghanistan
by a "broad coalition of 43 nations." Those countries, he rightly
noted, have as much at stake as the United States does in the border
region of Afghanistan and Pakistan -- "the epicenter of violent
extremism," Obama called it. But have our allies been pulling their
weight?
Currently, 68,000 Americans bear the burden of this war, with 30,000
more U.S. souls on the way. Contrast those numbers with the 38,000
troops contributed by 43 other countries. This week, NATO Secretary
General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said "at least 25 countries" have
pledged 7,000 additional troops. Hallelujah?
"What's at stake," Obama declared, "is the security of our allies and
the common security of the world." When will our allies get the word?
Finally, there's the matter of sacrifice at home.
Obama defined "violent extremism" as "an enduring test" for our
country. As it stands, the burden of defending our national security
is essentially borne by one group of Americans: volunteers and their
families. Is that fair?
The answer to that question makes the Kool-Aid even harder to
swallow.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/04/AR2009120403486.html
bademiyansubhanallah
By RAHIM FAIEZ and DEB RIECHMANN (AP) – 1 hour ago
KABUL — President Barack Obama has his troop surge. Afghanistan's
beleaguered security forces have theirs.
While the new U.S. war strategy was unveiled with worldwide fanfare,
Afghan's defense force has been quietly planning its own troop buildup
to break the Taliban's tightening grip on swathes of the nation. The
Afghan surge is the one to watch because the success of Obama's new
war plan is inextricably hinged to Afghanistan's ability to recruit,
train and retain security forces that can eventually take the lead in
defending the nation.
Afghan Defense Minister Gen. Abdul Rahim Wardak told The Associated
Press in an interview Saturday that he's already assigned one brigade
to a new three-brigade seventh corps of the Afghan National Army.
Corps 215 Maiwand is based in the Helmand capital of Lashkar Gah,
where most of the 30,000 U.S. reinforcements will be deployed.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown says the Afghans have promised to
send 5,000 members of the new corps to partner with British troops in
Helmand. Wardak insists that will be achieved with ease. He said he's
already begun staffing the command's second brigade.
Moreover, he said nearly 44 additional companies of Afghan soldiers
are being added to battalions in the south and east. Another Afghan
commando battalion, which will graduate in January, is also headed to
Helmand — the scene of a major weekend offensive by 1,000 Marines and
150 Afghan soldiers.
"We are bringing the strength level of every unit in the south to 117
percent of its authorized strength so there will be a significant
increase in the number of troops," Wardak said in his office at the
Ministry of Defense.
Building up the Afghan army, plagued by inefficiency, a lack of
trainers and corruption, is a precursor to a U.S. troop pullout. While
Obama set July 2011 as the date for the beginning of a withdrawal, he
said it would happen "taking into account conditions on the ground."
That caveat was what Afghan leaders needed to hear.
"It is in the speech," Wardak said. "I don't believe the international
community will just leave us like they did once before — after all
these sacrifices. This enemy is not only terrorizing Afghanistan, it
is terrorizing the whole international community. The nature of the
threat is such that no one country will be able to deal with it."
Initially, the size of the Afghan army was scheduled to swell from
85,000 to 134,000 by 2013. That target now is expected to be reached
earlier — by Oct. 31, 2011.
"We are increasing our level of recruitment and there are going to be
improvements in retention," he said. "We are going to go at a very
fast speed."
However, even the defense minister acknowledges that 134,000 will not
be enough. He agrees with Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S.
commander in Afghanistan, who has recommended a 240,000-member Afghan
army.
Getting there will be a steep uphill battle, says retired. Marine Col.
Jeff Haynes, who in 2008 headed a command that advised the Afghan
National Army.
"The rapid expansion of the Afghan National Army will likely undermine
the fragile success that has been achieved to date," Haynes wrote in
an essay on the Web site defpro.com. "It will also set back, not
hasten, its assumption of the lead role in defeating a resurgent
Taliban. Unfortunately, too many of the people who are developing
Afghan security strategy have never worked with the Afghan National
Army and do not have a clear understanding of their strengths and
weaknesses.
"The reality is that ANA effectiveness is already suffering because of
an inadequate number of competent leaders and staff officers. ...
Growing the army too fast will only exacerbate this leadership
deficit."
Candace Rondeaux, senior Afghan analyst for the International Crisis
Group, said the army is facing a a shortage of military trainers and
is fighting endemic corruption. The question is how many troops can
the Afghan government sustain in an aid-dependent country where the
annual budget is under $10 billion.
"If the goal is to build a quality force of some 134,000 Afghan army
soldiers by the end of 2011, then the addition of some 4,000 U.S.
military trainers under the new troop levels will certainly help," she
told the Council on Foreign Relations Web site. "But when it comes to
expanding the Afghan National Army to 250,000 ... then stress on the
system is inevitable and may blunt the positive impact that extra U.S.
troops will have in the long term."
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
United States Marines from the 2nd MEB, 4th Light Armored
Reconnaissance Battalion escort new Afghanistan National Police
officers to their base in Khan Neshin in the volatile province of
Helmand, southern Afghanistan, Saturday, Dec. 5, 2009. The police
officers will be part of a mentoring program and work alongside the
Marines. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer)
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h6_N5gH6arn0Pj1AWr43B0O1pV5QD9CDB88G0
bademiyansubhanallah
Worldview: How players view Obama plan
The end date may mollify Americans, but Afghans and Pakistanis may see
it as a sign of weakness.
By Trudy Rubin
Inquirer Opinion Columnist
Perhaps President Obama had no choice but to say he'd begin a
withdrawal from Afghanistan in 18 months. Perhaps a war-weary American
public would have rejected an open-ended commitment of troops.
But in trying to mollify his domestic audience, Obama may have lost
the audience most crucial to the success of the policy. I mean the
Afghan people, and the Pakistani military - without whose cooperation
this strategy cannot work.
Setting this deadline may have made sense from a domestic perspective.
It will calm some Americans who fear another Vietnam (even though the
analogy is faulty). Moreover, as Obama indicated late in his speech,
there is a caveat to this date certain: It will be based on
"conditions on the ground," meaning it can be pushed back if the
Afghan situation doesn't improve as fast as the president hopes.
But I fear that the mention of a specific date for starting a pullback
- July 2011 - sends the wrong signals to Afghans and Pakistanis. They
won't grasp caveats and nuance. They are more likely to deduce that
the Americans have their eyes on the exits, and that the Taliban will
reign in 18 months' time.
Some say a specific deadline was necessary to pressure Afghan
President Hamid Karzai to reform his government, whose rampant
corruption and ineptitude has fueled Taliban gains.
Yet, in reality, U.S. military and civilian officials were already
planning to do an end run around Karzai by working more intensely with
provincial and local officials. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has
repeatedly cited Afghanistan's history as a decentralized state with a
weak central government.
Indeed, Gen. Stanley McChrystal's strategy depends on securing and
winning the confidence of ordinary Afghans. If the U.S. troop surge
convinces Afghans that the tide has turned against a Taliban victory -
and that the Americans won't leave them hanging - many positive things
can happen.
For one, villagers or tribesmen may decide to form their own local
defense forces to keep the Taliban out. As Gates indicated in
congressional testimony last week, such local forces may prove as
important in pushing back the Taliban as the Afghan National Army,
which is likely to take years to train and cohere.
For another, many mid- and lower-level Taliban may decide to come in
from the cold, encouraged by U.S. and Afghan programs to reintegrate
them back into society. Such reintegration is a crucial part of
McChrystal's plan.
Yet the rise of local defense forces and any plans for reintegration
depend on Afghans' perception of the overall situation. Intimidated by
the Taliban, many rural Afghans want to ally with the side they
believe will emerge as the winner. If villagers think that the U.S.
commitment is fleeting, they will hesitate to reject Taliban fighters.
And those fighters will think twice about changing sides.
Moreover, another component of U.S. strategy could be undermined by
the perception that U.S. troops are on short time. The best long-term
hope for ending the Afghan conflict may lie with a political
settlement in which some senior Taliban leaders break with al-Qaeda,
and rejoin the Afghan political process. This is a goal Afghan leaders
seek, their public wants, and U.S. officials haven't ruled out.
There is no chance of such talks, however, while Taliban leaders
believe they can win by fighting. If the Taliban think Americans are
leaving by a certain date, they will have no incentive to compromise.
"With this timeline, it makes it even more unlikely that their
leadership will talk," says Ahmed Rashid, a top expert on the Taliban
and author of Descent Into Chaos. "They will think they can hang on."
So I wish Obama could have hinted at a withdrawal target without being
so specific. All the more so, because of the impact the July date may
have inside Pakistan.
The administration is asking Pakistan, whose military finally attacked
its own Taliban, to crack down on Afghan Taliban leaders hiding in its
southern province of Baluchistan. From there, Mullah Mohammed Omar and
his men are believed to direct attacks in the Afghan provinces of
Helmand and Kandahar, just across the border, where most of the U.S.
troop surge is headed.
The Pakistani military is unlikely to crack down on the Afghan
Taliban, however, if it believes NATO troops are leaving too quickly.
Pakistani brass want a friendly government in Kabul, and they have a
deep fear of post-NATO chaos. Obama's exit date may convince them that
their best option is to help the Afghan Taliban, who were once their
allies, retake power next door.
So Obama is caught in an incredible bind. He must convince Afghans and
Pakistanis that we won't leave so quickly and carelessly as to abandon
them to chaos. Otherwise he won't get the cooperation necessary to
make his strategy work. But he must convince Americans that the troops
will be coming home soon.
If he can square that circle, his strategy may still succeed (and I
believe he has no option but to try it). But he may come to regret
setting that very specific exit date.
E-mail Trudy Rubin at tru...@phillynews.com.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/currents/78621092.html
bademiyansubhanallah
forwarding this message from Barnett Rubin re: the statement from the
Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan to Obama’s speech on Afghanistan.
Rubin’s commentary:
“In this entire statement there is NOTHING Islamic, let alone global
jihadist. Except for the word “mujahidin,” it could have been written
by any “national liberation” movement."
from the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan:
Who Are Responsible for the Anarchy in Afghanistan?
Obama’s new strategy which is the result of the same mentality that
wants to continue the occupation of Afghanistan by military means,
will add to the anarchy prevailing in the country. In fact, Americans
are responsible for the chaotic situation. They handed over power to
notorious warlords, venal officials and mafia-linked governors;
But still, they claim that they want a clean government in Kabul while
their convoys of logistics are escorted by some murderous militias
involved in kidnapping and extortion of arbitrary taxes. There are
hundreds of private unregistered militias in Afghanistan under the
name of security guards who carry heroin in official vehicles. These
militias have links with warlords who have hold over high government
positions. They carry out their criminal activities with impunity.
The warlords usurp government and people’s lands and buildings. No one
can ask them why. A government land in Shirpur, located to the north-
east of the Kabul city is a good example on hand. Once a property of
the Ministry of Defense, now it is a posh area usurped by the warlords
who have built luxurious houses there. Karzai himself has granted
6000-7000 acres of lands to his favorites. Many drug-smugglers who had
been sentenced to prison by court have been released by decrees of the
President.
General Khudaidad, Minister of the Narcotic Campaign of the Kabul
Administration has acknowledged in a press conference that US military
officers had hands in drug trafficking. Abdul Jabbar Sabit, former
attorney-general of the Kabul Administration, says he was not able to
lay his hand on some notorious governors involved in drug-trafficking
and bribery because they were protected by high-ups in the government.
Ultimately, Abdul Jabar Sabit was forced to resign. American Secretary
of State, Hillary Clinton, many times has referred to Afghanistan as a
Mafia State but she did not say that the Mafia State was their
handiwork.
Independent analysts around the world believe that USA wants to keep a
corrupt government installed in Kabul because this will provide a
justification to maintain American military presence in the country.
Similarly, on the one hand, the White House Security Advisor James
Jones says there are fewer than 100 Al-qaeda members in Afghanistan
and on the other hand, Obama sends 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan.
This high gap between words and deeds shows that America has other
colonialist objectives in Afghanistan and in the region, ostensibly
under the name of the so-called War on Terror. Furthermore, they claim
that they want to resolve the Afghan issue through negotiation and
reconciliation; but practically, they want Mujahideen to lay down arms
and accept the Constitution conceived and framed by America and want
to keep their bases in Afghanistan for a longer period. Thus under the
ploy of negotiation, the White House wants to find a pretext to
continue their occupation of Afghanistan.
The Afghans, particularly the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, has no
agenda of meddling in the internal affairs of other countries and is
ready to give legal guarantee if the foreign forces withdraw from
Afghanistan. But the Mujahideen are not ready to allow foreign bases
in Afghanistan or trade on the independence of the country.
Ironically, after American invasion of Afghanistan, the country has
been turned into a battle ground of rival intelligence agencies which
are linked with the regime in Kabul and have hidden agendas against
surrounding countries.
Bomb blasts in public places are the work of these agencies. The more
the foreign troops stay in Afghanistan, the more such gruesome events
will take place. In the present time, the Mujahideen are the only
force which wants to release the Afghans and the country from being
hostage in the cobweb of foreign agencies. With the victory of
Mujahideen in Afghanistan, the whole region will take a breath of
relief and the current bloodshed will come to an end. But it is
responsibility of all who have free conscious to morally help
Mujahideen to free the region from the vortex of the colonialist
machinations.
original link to the Taliban statement:
by teru kuwayama at 2009-12-06 01:27:01 UTC
“In this entire statement there is NOTHING Islamic, let alone global
jihadist. Except for the word “mujahidin,” it could have been written
by any “national liberation movement."
Except, of course, the statement: “The Afghans, particularly the
Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan…”
by Barry Milyovsky | 06 Dec 2009 01:12 | lost in the, United States
I’m guessing Barnett Rubin meant “Islamist”, not “Islamic” – the
volume he’s pounding out of that iphone is pretty exhausting even on
the receiving end.
Even the term “Taliban” is a bit meaningless – and there’s increasing
identification on the Afghan side as “mujahideen”, referencing the
Soviet occupation.
The Quetta/Kandahar crew are articulating a position as nationalist
“freedom fighters”, undercutting the American argument that they pose
a threat to the west, and inserting very specific messages to peel off
US allies, most particularly the Pakistanis.
From a “strategic communications” perspective, it’s fascinating, with
some interesting signals between the lines, and some hints of their
vision of the endgame.
by teru kuwayama | 06 Dec 2009 05:12 | Palo Alto, California, United
States
“With the victory of Mujahideen in Afghanistan, the whole region will
take a breath of relief and the current bloodshed will come to an
end”. Too bad for the poor sods who will be living under Sharia law
though. Assuming that eventually the Americans, Brits and others all
pull out and the Talibs take over, are they really going to just leave
it at that? I doubt it very much somehow.
by JR, (John Watts-Robertson). | 06 Dec 2009 08:12 | rothwell, United
Kingdom
What is the benefit of clearing Afghanistan? Who benefits? Is this US
really getting out of Iraq? No. It has the largest US embassy in the
world there. Who is inside the building masterminding intelligence?
Will the US leave Afghanitan in the same way? Police the state before
and after it leaves? The US is not leaving Afghanistan as long as Iran
is seen as a threat. Al Qaeda is not leaving the planet as long as the
idea exists and you can’t kill ideas. Isn’t it time to stop fighting
the fighting? Isn’t it time to start, yes start because that is the
beginning we never seem to reach and educate people about the meaning
of humanity and the interventionism of state, military and religion in
their daily life?
by Carlos Cazalis | 06 Dec 2009 08:12 | Dhaka, Bangladesh
http://www.lightstalkers.org/posts/taliban-response-to-obamas-afghanistan-speech
chhotemianinshallah
(AP) – 1 hour ago
WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is expressing strong
doubts that Taliban leaders will change the path of violence they are
now following.
The secretary of state said she is highly skeptical that Taliban
leaders would be willing to meet what the U.S. sees are the necessary
conditions of renouncing violence and accepting the Afghan
Constitution.
According to Clinton, the U.S. government has no firm information
whether any of those in the Taliban leadership would be interested in
following a path to peace.
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5icbqI-icJDYet64Sq_J3pzuPXCWAD9CDQMN00
Sid Harth
The Right Target
Published: December 6, 2009
Graham Fuller’s article, “Stretching out an ugly struggle” (Views,
Dec. 4), hit the nail on the head. Sending another 30,000 U.S. troops
into Afghanistan will not “finish the job.”
In fact, the West cannot “win” this war with its present strategy. The
fundamental flaw is that the United States and its allies conflate two
distinct groups — Al Qaeda and the Taliban — that have different
agendas. In doing so, the West fails to completely eliminate either
threat.
President Obama keeps talking about destroying Al Qaeda, but instead
America fights the Taliban. The United States should make a deal with
the Taliban: Cease all military activity and publicly and permanently
break with Al Qaeda. In return, the Taliban would be brought into the
Afghan government and the West would continue to help with the
reconstruction of the country.
In such a scenario, President Hamid Karzai would have to go. But who
would miss the man who stole the election so he could remain head of a
deeply corrupt and incompetent regime?
The U.S. could then focus on the real enemy: Al Qaeda.
Claude Rakisits, Chêne-Bougeries, Switzerland
Those of us who voted for “hope” and “change” have ended up with a
centrist-governing, old-school party president who now risks his
reputation, presidency and the woefully empty American treasury by
sending 30,000 or more Americans into the bloody cesspool of
Afghanistan.
To the Afghans, we Americans are invaders. History should tell Mr.
Obama that invaders have not done too well there. Ask the Brits, ask
the Russians. So here we are, again, with our tired old war model that
doesn’t fit the situation. And here we are, again, backing a corrupt
regime.
So it takes 30,000 troops and trillions of dollars to capture Osama
bin Laden and the other 9/11 culprits?
Meet the new president, depressingly like the old president.
Frank DiMarco, Portland, Oregon
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/opinion/07iht-edlet.html?_r=1
Sid Harth
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: December 6, 2009
WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the initial U.S.
troop withdrawal in July 2011 might involve only a small number of
troops and that Americans should expect a significant U.S. military
presence in Afghanistan for two years to four years more.
Just as in Iraq, the U.S. eventually will turn over provinces to local
security forces, allowing the United States to bring the number of
troops down steadily, according to Gates, who appeared on three Sunday
talk shows with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to discuss
President Barack Obama’s new Afghan war plan.
That plan includes an increase of 30,000 U.S. troops, followed by a
scheduled transition to a greater role for Afghan forces that would
start in July 2011. Obama’s plan would increase to 100,000 the number
of U.S. troops there, marking the largest expansion of the war since
it began eight years ago.
Gates acknowledged that the additional U.S. forces will mean more
casualties at first. He also said he’s happy with the results of an
offensive in Helmand province.
“I think one of the reasons that our military leaders are pretty
confident is that they have already begun to see changes where the
Marines are present in southern Helmand,” Gates said.
He rejected suggestions that setting a transition date would embolden
the Taliban. They read newspapers and are able to determine public
opinion in the United States and Europe, he said.
Gates said he doesn’t believe the Taliban will get more aggressive,
and would welcome it if they lay low until the target date in 2011
because that would give coalition troops opportunities to make great
progress in stabilizing Afghanistan.
Clinton said one area that may not show much progress is winning over
Taliban leaders.
They “have to renounce al-Qaida, renounce violence. They have to be
willing to abide by the constitution of Afghanistan and live
peacefully,” she said.
“We have no firm information whether any of those leaders would be at
all interested in following that kind of a path,” she said. “In fact,
I’m highly skeptical that any of them would.”
But both Clinton and Gates said having a target date will help move
both countries toward a successful transition.
“What we’ve done and what the president’s direction to the commanders
on the ground is very clearly: We want this to move. We want it to
move quickly,” said Clinton.
Obama’s combination of a troop increase and a transition target is
intended to balance “a demonstration of resolve with also
communicating a sense of urgency to the Afghan government that they
must step up to the plate in terms of recruiting their soldiers,
training their soldiers and getting their soldiers into the field,”
Gates said
“It’s an effort to try and let the Afghans know that while we intend
to have a relationship and support them for a long time, the nature of
that relationship is going to begin to change in July of 2011,” Gates
said. “And as the security component comes down, the economic,
development and the political relationship will become a bigger part
of the relationship.”
Clinton and Gates appeared on ABC’s “This Week,” CBS’ “Face the
Nation” and NBC’s “Meet the Press.” The interviews were taped Saturday
and the networks provided transcripts in advance of the shows’
broadcast.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/world/asia/07gatestv.html?hp
Sid Harth
Similarities to Iraq Surge Plan Mask Risks in Afghanistan
By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: December 4, 2009
WASHINGTON — President Obama strongly opposed President George W.
Bush’s surge in Iraq during his presidential campaign, and even now he
has never publicly acknowledged that it was largely successful.
At War: On the Spot: The Afghan 'Surge' But in the White House
Situation Room a little more than a month ago, he told his aides, “It
turned out to be a good thing.” And as many of Mr. Obama’s own
advisers have recounted in recent days in interviews, the decision on
the surge of 30,000 troops to Afghanistan by next summer was at least
partly inspired by the success of the effort in Iraq, which Mr. Bush’s
aides say is their best hope that historians will give them some
credit when the history of a highly problematic war is written.
In fact, Iraq analogies have been flying back and forth so furiously
in recent days that Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, the only
holdover from the Bush-era cabinet, told Congress, “This is the second
surge I’ve been up here defending.”
But probe beneath the surface, and it becomes clear that Mr. Obama is
heading into his new strategy with his ears ringing with warnings —
from some of his own aides and military commanders — that many of the
conditions that made the Iraq surge work do not exist in Afghanistan.
As one of the strategists deeply involved in the White House Situation
Room debates put it, “We spent a lot of time discussing the fact that
the only thing Iraq and Afghanistan have in common is a lot of sand.”
Still, the similarities in the surges are striking. The absolute
number of additional troops is roughly the same: 30,000. The Iraq
figure, 28,500 troops, was 7,000 more than Mr. Bush first announced;
Mr. Obama’s team says that will not happen in this case.
The deployment time in the case of Iraq was six months; when the
Pentagon first came to President Obama two months ago with a plan that
stretched over 18 months, he offered up some withering questions. He
turned to Gen. David H. Petraeus, now the head of Central Command and
the commander in Iraq during the Bush surge, and asked: “What takes so
long? What’s so hard about this?”
White House officials say it was Mr. Obama himself who pressed the
idea of a surge of his own, openly acknowledging in a meeting that he
had criticized it harshly during the campaign.
Both surges aimed to knock back an insurgency that had gained
territory and caused high casualties, and to buy time and space to
train local forces for combat. “Neither one of these surges,” said one
officer involved in both decisions, “was born to exploit success. They
were designed to reverse momentum.”
No one in the Obama White House voices much admiration for the
inheritance left by Mr. Bush, so it was probably unintentional that
when the Afghanistan strategy was announced on Tuesday, the rollout
had echoes of the earlier one. Mr. Bush’s fact sheet on the surge
carried the headline “The New Way Forward in Iraq.” Mr. Obama’s speech
carried the title “The Way Forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”
But the commonalities end there. The Iraq surge worked in large part
because there was powerful support in Anbar Province from the so-
called Awakening, the movement by local Sunni tribes who rose up
against extremists who were killing people, forcibly marrying local
women and cutting off the hands of men who smoked in public. In Iraq,
American officials believed that most leaders of a vigorous
opposition, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, were foreigners.
The United States remains hopeful that it can capitalize on Afghan
militias that have taken up arms against the Taliban in local areas,
but a series of intelligence reports supplied to Mr. Obama since
September found no evidence in Afghanistan of anything on the scale of
the Iraqi Awakening movement. What’s more, in Afghanistan the
extremists, the Taliban, are natives.
“They are part of the furniture in Afghanistan; they have always been
there,” one of Mr. Obama’s counterterrorism experts said, explaining
why Mr. Obama’s goal is simply to degrade the Taliban’s power, not to
defeat the group. In Iraq, the aim was to defeat the insurgents, a
goal that has been largely achieved.
Then there is the question of whether Afghanistan’s military is
trainable. Iraq’s forces were in a shambles, but the country had a
tradition of military order. Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, reminded senators this week that in Iraq it
took several years to get traction, and that in Afghanistan it could
take longer.
“It was really late ’07 before the police in Iraq really started to
step out,” he said, adding later, “we have to be careful with
comparisons.”
Perhaps the biggest difference between the two surges is this: Mr.
Bush never said how long his would last, and Mr. Obama went out of his
way to declare that starting in July 2011, the tide would begin to
flow out. The administration — mostly Mr. Gates — spent much of the
week explaining the twin logic of going in strong and then signaling
the beginning of a departure, emphasizing many times that if
conditions were poor, the reduction in American forces would be slow.
The theory of the deadline was that it was the only way to show
President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan that American patience was
limited and that its commitment was not open-ended.
Mr. Gates again drew analogies to Iraq, saying, “I think, as we turn
over more districts and more provinces to Afghan security control,
much as we did with the provincial Iraqi control, that there will be a
thinning of our forces and a gradual drawdown.”
But to Republican critics of that approach — and some architects of
the Iraq surge — the announcement sows the seeds of failure before the
process begins. “The question is: Is it fatal to the overall
strategy?” asked Meghan O’Sullivan, the deputy national security
adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan in the Bush administration, and now a
professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School. “I think it may be.”
Her argument is that many in Afghanistan, and the leadership in
Pakistan, will decide that the date is a slow-motion repeat of 1989,
when the United States began to pull back from Afghanistan after the
Soviets left in defeat. In the next few weeks, members of the Obama
war cabinet are expected to show up in Islamabad and Kabul with one
message: We’re not leaving. Really.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/05/world/05policy.html?hp
chhotemianinshallah
adviser
6 Dec 2009, 2108 hrs IST, AGENCIES
WASHINGTON: The United States will launch a new effort to capture or
kill Osama bin Laden, who is believed to be hiding along the
mountainous Afghan-Pakistani border, US national security adviser
James Jones said on Sunday.
Asked in an interview if the administration planned a fresh attempt to
go after Al-Qaeda's leader, Jones said: "I think so."
The latest intelligence reports suggest that Bin Laden "is somewhere
inside north Waziristan, sometimes on the Pakistani side of the
border, sometimes on the Afghan side of the border, hiding in very,
very rough mountainous area, generally ungoverned," Jones said.
"We're going to have to get after that to make sure a very important
symbol of what Al-Qaeda stands for is once again on the run or
captured," said Jones, a retired Marine general.
Al-Qaeda was plotting more attacks against US and other Western
targets and the United Stated needed to ensure those plots did not
"become a reality," he said.
The Al-Qaeda network's leader is seen as the chief mastermind of the
attacks of September 11, 2001 on New York and Washington that killed
nearly 3,000 people.
Jones said the United States was working closely with Islamabad to
disrupt militant networks inside Pakistan's borders.
Despite Jones' vow to track down Bin Laden, Defense Secretary Robert
Gates said on Sunday in an interview that Washington did not know
where the Al-Qaeda leader was and had lacked reliable information on
his whereabouts for years.
Immediately after the attacks, US government officials named Bin Laden
and the Al-Qaeda network as the prime suspects and offered a reward of
25 million dollars for information leading to his capture or death.
In 2007, the reward was doubled to 50 million dollars. But so far, the
Al-Qaeda founder has avoided capture.
A Senate report released last week said Bin Laden was "within the
grasp" of American forces in late 2001 but escaped because then-
defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld rejected calls for reinforcements.
chhotemianinshallah
By Dana Milbank
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Some parishioners in the Church of Obama discovered last week that
their spiritual leader is a false prophet.
Consider the blow suffered by the liberal filmmaker Michael Moore, who
issued a plaintive plea to the president on the eve of his
announcement that he was sending 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan.
By escalating the war, Moore wrote:
"[Y]ou will do the worst possible thing you could do -- destroy the
hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you. With just one
speech tomorrow night you will turn a multitude of young people who
were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics. You will
teach them what they've always heard is true -- that all politicians
are alike."
Obama, of course, was not moved by his follower from Flint. The real
question is why Moore, and those millions and multitudes of whom he
wrote, thought that Obama would do otherwise. Obama never said during
the campaign that he would pull out of Afghanistan; in fact, he had
promised to escalate. "As president, I will make the fight against al-
Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be," he said in
July 2008, vowing to send at least two more combat brigades to
Afghanistan. "This is a war that we have to win."
Yet Moore is surely right about the disillusionment of Obama's
supporters. Even before the surge announcement, support among liberals
for Obama's Afghanistan policy had dropped 22 points since July, to 59
percent from 81 percent, according to a Post-ABC News poll. Overall
liberal support for Obama had drifted down to 80 percent from 94
percent in the spring -- and, given the noisy complaints from the left
last week, that number seems likely to fall further.
It was bound to happen eventually. Obama had become to his youthful
supporters a vessel for all of their liberal hopes. They saw him as a
transformational figure who would end war, save the Earth from global
warming, restore the economy -- and still be home for dinner. They
lashed out at anybody who dared to suggest that Obama was just another
politician, subject to calculation, expediency and vanity like all the
rest.
Certainly, Obama gets some blame for encouraging the messianic cult as
he stumped for change and hope. "I am asking you to stop settling for
what the cynics say we have to accept," he would say as he wrapped up
speeches. "Let us reach for what we know is possible: A nation healed.
A world repaired. An America that believes again."
In other cases, Obama truly has gone back on campaign vows. Even some
of his advisers are disappointed that he has moved so slowly to close
the Guantanamo Bay prison. Civil libertarians are justifiably
disappointed with his decision to continue much of the Bush
administration secrecy. Clean-government types are understandably
frustrated that Obama vowed that lobbyists "will not get a job in my
White House" but now grants waivers so that lobbyists can work in key
administration jobs.
But at least as much blame for the disillusionment goes to
progressives who simply expected too much of him. Some are
disappointed that the Nobel Peace Prize winner proposed even higher
defense spending than George W. Bush did -- but Obama never said he
would cut the Pentagon's budget. Many liberals are disappointed that
he isn't pushing the "public option" more forcefully in the health-
care debate -- but it was never something Obama emphasized during the
campaign.
For all of Obama's soaring oratory about hope and change, it was plain
even during the campaign that his record was that of an
incrementalist. His signature legislation -- health care in the
Illinois Senate and ethics in the U.S. Senate -- were evolutionary
improvements, not revolutionary overhauls. His Afghanistan policy,
likewise, is above all a pragmatic, nonideological strategy. He stayed
true to his campaign promise to take the fight to the Taliban, but he
also tried to build a consensus.
You'd think his supporters might applaud this sort of thoughtful,
methodical leadership as a repudiation of the Bush style of government
by political theory. Instead, they're using words such as "O'Bomber"
to describe the president. MoveOn.org launched a petition drive
against the policy. Code Pink, the group that heckled Bush officials
for years, heckled Obama advisers on Capitol Hill last week. The
liberal Web publisher Arianna Huffington told Charlie Rose that the
policy "puts into question his whole leadership."
This is what happens when true believers mistake a mortal for a
messiah.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/04/AR2009120403077.html
chhotemianinshallah
stability returns
2009-12-06 18:40:00
Expressing concern over President Obama's plan to start pulling
American troops out of Afghanistan by mid-2011, top government sources
here have said that America must not vacate war-ravaged Afghanistan
until the establishment of peace and stability there.
Sources said, ever since President Obama unleashed his revamped Afghan
strategy, according to which the US would be sending an additional
30,000 troops, Indian authorities are reportedly in touch with the
White House, and are convinced that Washington is not adopting any
'exit strategy'.
New Delhi believes that the situation in Afghanistan is so grave that
the planned US surge would not be able to resolve the quagmire in the
next 18 months.
While the United States has stressed that it shares its goal of
dismantling Pakistan and Afghanistan-based terror safe havens with
India, sources clarified that New Delhi has no intention of sending
troops to Afghanistan.
U.S. Ambassador to India Timothy J. Roemer had said: "Our core goal in
Afghanistan and Pakistan-to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat terrorist
networks-is an aspiration we share with India."
"We must unite in the commitment of our civilian resources, and
provide the tools for economic development and humanitarian aid to
eliminate the extremist violence that is the enemy of peace,
faith,democracy, tolerance, fundamental freedoms and human rights,"
said Roemer, hours after President Obama's announcement of the new
Afghan policy.
Obama had on Tuesday, said he was ordering 30,000 more U.S. troops to
Afghanistan by next summer to counter a resurgent Taliban and had
plans to begin a troop withdrawal in 18 months. The goal, Obama said,
was to speed up the battle against Taliban insurgents, secure key
population centres and train Afghan security forces so they can take
over and clear the way for a U.S. exit.
Violence has escalated as tens of thousands of additional foreign
troops, mainly Americans, have been deployed in response to an
escalating Taliban insurgency which has claimed record numbers of
military and civilian lives so far in 2009. (ANI)
Sid Harth
By Tony Karon Sunday, Dec. 06, 2009
A U.S. soldier surveys the Pesh valley during a mission in Kunar
Province, Afghanistan.
Carlos Barria / Reuters / Corbis
President Barack Obama knows the Afghan war is going badly, but he
insists that the specter of an al-Qaeda comeback makes Afghanistan a
"war of necessity". So he has ordered some 30,000 new troops to the
front, hoping to hold the line enough that Afghan forces can be built
up to eventually take over the mission from the U.S. It may sound like
a limited goal after the sweeping visions of democracy promised during
the Bush years. But even that relatively modest strategy is based on
some very questionable assumptions.
(See a slideshow of the war in Afghanistan up close.)
Here are five of them:
The Qaeda Threat Requires a Ground War
Obama made the threat of al-Qaeda returning on the back of a Taliban
victory the primary rationale for escalating the war in Afghanistan.
But, as many have pointed out, al-Qaeda doesn't need sanctuaries in
order to plot terror attacks, and its leadership core is based in the
neighboring tribal areas of Pakistan. Which means that 100,000 U.S.
troops are now being committed to a mission whose goal is to prevent a
few hundred men from re-establishing a base of operations.
And then there's the problem that having masses of U.S. troops in
Afghanistan, for whatever reason, inevitably creates a nationalist
backlash that fuels the insurgency — a problem that even Defense
Secretary Robert Gates had noted early in the debate. The fact that
the Taliban is now in effective control of as much as half the country
eight years after being routed by the U.S.-led invasion is a sign that
the local population is at least more tolerant of an insurgency
against foreign forces. Expanding the ground war may not solve this
problem. As University of Michigan historian Juan Cole wrote
Wednesday, "The U.S. counter-insurgency plan assumes that Pashtun
villagers dislike and fear the Taliban, and just need to be protected
from them so as to stop the politics of intimidation. But what if the
villagers are cousins of the Taliban and would rather support their
clansmen than white Christian foreigners?"
(See pictures of the battle against the Taliban.)
Afghan Security Forces Can Be Trained to Take Over the Mission
The centerpiece of Obama's exit strategy is the training of Afghan
security forces to take responsibility for fighting the Taliban, just
as Iraqi forces have taken charge of security in Iraq. But Afghanistan
is nothing like Iraq, and training may not be the decisive issue:
Despite the U.S. having officially trained 94,000 Afghan soldiers,
there's no sign of an effective Afghan security force capable of
fighting the Taliban. Desertion rates are high — one in four soldiers
trained last year, by some accounts. So are rates of drug addiction.
Most importantly, the most effective elements of the military are
dominated by ethnic Tajiks, which does little to help win support of
the Pashtuns, the country's largest ethnic group and the one among
which the insurgency is based. Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan had no
powerful army or strong state before the U.S. went in — nor does it
have the oil wealth that allows Iraq to pay for its own armed forces.
And then there's the question of whether they'll be willing to fight
the Taliban on behalf of a foreign-backed government.
President Karzai Can Be an Effective Partner
Aside from the serious questions of ballot fraud in the recent vote,
the bigger legitimacy problem in Hamid Karzai's reelection was that
only one in four registered voters actually turned out on election
day. In the absence of any credible alternative, Washington will use
Karzai's dependence on the West for funding and security to pressure
him to deliver the sort of governance that can win popular support.
But Karzai's government is widely seen as corrupt, ineffective and a
tool in the hands of a foreign invader, and Afghans are mostly gloomy
about the prospects for reforming it. While he may be forced to
respond to some egregious cases of corruption, Karzai's instinct will
be to continue to use the power of patronage to broker local support.
Corruption and nepotism may be just as much as symptom of the weakness
of the central government as its cause. Even in the times of greatest
stability, Afghanistan has been governed from the center via a loose
consensus among powerful regional and ethnic leaderships. Karzai may,
in fact, have been governing in the way a leader without a major
national political base of his own deems it necessary to survive in a
post-U.S. Afghanistan. And putting his government under stronger
Western tutelage risks further undermining his legitimacy in the eyes
of many of his own people.
(See pictures of Afghanistan's dangerous Korengal Valley.)
Signaling a U.S. Departure Date Creates Leverage
Some critics suggest that by announcing July 2011 as the target date
to begin a troop drawdown, President Obama has encouraged the Taliban
to simply wait out the Americans. Supporters counter that by declaring
that the U.S. commitment is finite, the President is forcing Karzai
and the Pakistanis to take more responsibility for fighting the
Taliban. That debate may be missing the point: Everyone in the region
is already acting on the assumption that the U.S. presence is
temporary, knowing that America can't sustain a permanent occupation.
One reason that Karzai has made common cause with some notorious thugs
is that he feels the need to have some muscle behind him when the U.S.
goes. The Pakistanis, for their part, want to ensure that the U.S.
leaves on the basis of a deal with the Taliban that replaces the
present government, which is too close to India for Islamabad's
comfort. And the Taliban — like any indigenous insurgency confronting
a foreign military — knows that time is on its side.
Pakistan Shares America's Goals
The Obama Administration has stressed that its Afghan plan can't work
unless Pakistan shuts down Taliban safe-havens on its side of the
border. But Pakistan has declined to do so, because its key decision
makers — the military leadership — don't share the U.S. view of the
conflict in Afghanistan. Months of cajoling and exhortation by U.S.
officials have failed to shake the Pakistani view that the country's
prime security challenge is its lifelong conflict with India rather
than the threat of Taliban extremism, and the Pakistani military sees
the Karzai government as under Indian sway. As a result, Pakistan's
large-scale military offensives against the Taliban have been confined
to those who challenge the authority of the Pakistani state; those who
use Pakistan as a base from which to launch attacks in Afghanistan
have been largely unmolested.
(See pictures of training Afghanistan's police force.)
While U.S. officials decry the distinction between the Afghan and
Pakistani Taliban, Pakistan's generals believe their domestic Taliban
insurgency will only stop once the Americans have left Afghanistan.
But they want the U.S. to leave in an orderly fashion, on the basis of
a political settlement: A deal negotiated with the Taliban that sees
the Karzai government replaced or remade in a new arrangement that
gives Pakistan-aligned Pashtuns far greater power.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1945869,00.html
Sid Harth
By Mark Thompson / Washington Wednesday, Oct. 07, 2009
U.S. Marines conduct an operation to clear a village of Taliban
fighters in Mian Poshteh, Afghanistan
Joe Raedle / Getty
President George W. Bush, eight years ago today, in his first press
conference after launching the Afghan war, conceded he didn't know
when the conflict would end. "People often ask me, 'How long will this
last?' " he said 96 hours after the invasion began. "It may happen
tomorrow, it may happen a month from now, it may take a year or two,
but we will prevail." Three weeks into the war, New York Times
reporter R.W. Apple wrote that "the ominous word quagmire has begun to
haunt conversations" in Washington about the conflict. Defense
Secretary Don Rumsfeld had little time for such grousing. "I must say
that I hear some impatience from the people who have to produce news
every 15 minutes," he said as the first month's fighting neared its
end, "but not from the American people."
(See TIME's audio slideshow "The War in Afghanistan Up Close.")
Bush is no longer President, Rumsfeld no longer Defense Secretary;
R.W. "Johnny" Apple is dead, and so are nearly 900 U.S. troops killed
in Afghanistan — 239 of them this year alone. And most Americans have
run out of patience with the war, modestly begun eight years ago to
overthrow the Taliban regime that had harbored Osama bin Laden and al-
Qaeda before 9/11. That goal seemed to have been achieved seven years
and 11 months ago, when the Taliban were driven from Kabul. But the
U.S. and its allies have waged an inconclusive war against the Taliban
and their al-Qaeda allies ever since. President Barack Obama is being
asked by his generals to commit more troops to Afghanistan at a moment
when fewer than 1 in 3 Americans supports that option.
(See pictures of U.S. Marines at war in Afghanistan's Kunar province.)
Afghanistan is Obama's war now, so branded after he approved
dispatching 21,000 more U.S. troops into battle earlier this year, a
move that will raise the U.S. troop level there to 68,000 next month.
He also tapped Army general Stan McChrystal as his new Afghan
commander to develop a new strategy to win the war. But McChrystal
found the security situation there in a dangerous decline, and says he
needs 40,000 additional U.S. troops to have the best chance of turning
things around. Obama's inner circle is having doubts over whether the
President should approve that request.
Obama will meet behind closed doors for three hours with his Afghan-
war advisers on Wednesday. They held a similar session last Friday,
and have scheduled a third one for Friday. "My assessment, having been
a participant in this, has been that we've had ample opportunity to
provide our best professional military advice," Army general David
Petraeus, chief of the U.S. Central Command overseeing the Afghan war,
told an Army audience Tuesday. "General McChrystal has been
participating in these by video teleconference." Afghanistan, he
added, "requires a sustained substantial commitment." But, perhaps
more politically astute than McChrystal — who called publicly for
reinforcements in Afghanistan Oct. 1 — Petraeus quickly added, "I'm
not going to get into whether that means more or less or, you know,
what number of forces, enablers, trainers and civilians."
(Read "Two Arguments for What to Do in Afghanistan.")
President Bush faced a similar conundrum in Iraq two years ago. In the
face of strong doubts from Congress and the U.S. military, he ordered
a "surge" of nearly 30,000 more troops in and around Baghdad, and
their deployment helped calm the country. But there were a couple of
differences: first of all, Iraq was Bush's war and he was in danger of
losing it. Perhaps more importantly, Bush was nearing the end of his
second term, meaning — electorally, at least — he had nothing to lose
by upping the ante.
Obama is in the first year of his first term, and will almost
certainly run again in 2012. If Afghanistan is the same sucking chest
wound that it is today three years from now, voters are unlikely to
grant that wish. But he wouldn't want to face an electorate that had
been persuaded that he had "lost Afghanistan." So, amid all the
cacophony of conflicting advice about what to do in Afghanistan,
Obama's going to have to make this decision all by himself.
It's really pretty simple: if he believes McChrystal can turn things
around by getting all the troops he seeks, Obama will agree (most
likely minus a small Commander in Chief tax to show who's really in
charge). But if McChrystal can't promise something resembling success
by 2012, look for Obama to shift to a more modest strategy, with more
modest goals, and paint it as realism rather than retreat.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1928935,00.html?iid=sphere-inline-sidebar
bademiyansubhanallah
The Next Surge: Counterbureaucracy
By JONATHAN J. VACCARO
Published: December 7, 2009
THE Taliban commander was back in the village. Our base roared to life
as we prepared to capture him. Two Chinook helicopters spun their
blades in anticipation in the dark. Fifty Afghan commandos brooded
outside, pacing in the gravel. I was nearby, yelling into a phone:
“Who else do we need approvals from? Another colonel? Why?”
A villager had come in that afternoon to tell us that a Taliban
commander known for his deployment of suicide bombers was threatening
the elders. The villager had come to my unit, a detachment of the
United States Army stationed in eastern Afghanistan, for help.
Mindful of orders to protect the civilian population, we developed a
plan with the Afghan commandos to arrest the Taliban commander that
evening before he moved back into Pakistan. While the troops prepared,
I spent hours on the phone trying to convince the 11 separate Afghan,
American and international forces authorities who needed to sign off
to agree on a plan.
Some couldn’t be found. Some liked the idea, others suggested
revisions. The plan evolved. Hours passed. The cellphone in the corner
rang. “Where are you?” the villager asked urgently. The Taliban
commander was drinking tea, he said.
At 5 a.m. the Afghan commandos gave up on us and went home. The
helicopters powered down. The sun rose. I was still on the phone
trying to arrange approvals. Intelligence arrived indicating that the
Taliban commander had moved on. The villagers were incredulous.
This incident is typical of what I saw during my six-month tour in
Afghanistan this year. We were paralyzed by red tape, beaten by our
own team. Our answer to Afghans seeking help was: “I can’t come today
or tomorrow, but maybe next week. I have several bosses that I need to
ask for permission.”
The decision has been made to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan,
and Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top American commander there, is
expected to speak to Congress this week about his strategy for the
war. Our troops can win the war, but they will be more effective if
the bureaucracy is thinned.
In my experience, decisions move through the process of risk
mitigation like molasses. When the Taliban arrive in a village, I
discovered, it takes 96 hours for an Army commander to obtain
necessary approvals to act. In the first half of 2009, the Army
Special Forces company I was with repeatedly tried to interdict
Taliban. By our informal count, however, we (and the Afghan commandos
we worked with) were stopped on 70 percent of our attempts because we
could not achieve the requisite 11 approvals in time.
For some units, ground movement to dislodge the Taliban requires a
colonel’s oversight. In eastern Afghanistan, traveling in anything
other than a 20-ton mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicle requires a
written justification, a risk assessment and approval from a colonel,
a lieutenant colonel and sometimes a major. These vehicles are so
large that they can drive to fewer than half the villages in
Afghanistan. They sink into wet roads, crush dry ones and require wide
berth on mountain roads intended for donkeys. The Taliban walk to
these villages or drive pickup trucks.
The red tape isn’t just on the battlefield. Combat commanders are
required to submit reports in PowerPoint with proper fonts, line
widths and colors so that the filing system is not derailed. Small aid
projects lag because of multimonth authorization procedures. A United
States-financed health clinic in Khost Province was built last year,
but its opening was delayed for more than eight months while paperwork
for erecting its protective fence waited in the approval queue.
Communication with the population also undergoes thorough oversight.
When a suicide bomber detonates, the Afghan streets are abuzz with
Taliban propaganda about the glories of the war against America.
Meanwhile, our messages have to inch through a press release approval
pipeline, emerging 24 to 48 hours after the event, like a debutante
too late for the ball.
Curbing the bureaucracy is possible. Decision-making authority for
operations could be returned to battalions and brigades. Staffs that
manage the flow of operations could operate on 24-hour schedules like
the forces they regulate. Authority to release information could be
delegated to units in contact with Afghans. Formatting requirements
could be eased. The culture of risk mitigation could be countered with
a culture of initiative.
Mid-level leaders win or lose conflicts. Our forces are better than
the Taliban’s, but we have leashed them so tightly that they are
unable to compete.
Jonathan J. Vaccaro served as an officer with the United States Army
in Afghanistan from January 2009 to July 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/opinion/08vaccaro.html?_r=1
bademiyansubhanallah
By 2011, we'll be gone from Iraq and going from Afghanistan. Don't
believe it.
David Furst / AFP-Getty Images
A U.S. marine on duty in Farah province in southern Afghanistan
By Richard N. Haass | NEWSWEEK
Published Dec 5, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Dec 14, 2009
When it comes to war, Americans are fond of quoting military thinkers
like Sun Tzu and Clausewitz. But the strategist with the most to say
about the current U.S. foreign-policy predicament may be Jean-Paul
Sartre.
Sartre's play No Exit features characters who cannot escape from one
another. "Hell is other people," one says. Why is this relevant?
Because in both Iraq and Afghanistan, America finds itself involved
(some might say trapped) in difficult situations (some might describe
them as hell) where its ability to exit successfully depends largely
on its local partners. The United States is counting on Iraqis and
Afghans to do more so that Americans can do less. But in neither
country is it obvious, or even likely, that this will turn out to be
the case.
PHOTOS
The Human Toll
A look at the impact of the war on terror in Afghanistan
Front Lens
About Face
In Iraq, America has committed itself to a hard exit. The U.S. and
Iraqi governments have signed a pact under which all U.S. soldiers
(still numbering some 120,000) are to leave Iraq by the end of 2011.
In his West Point speech, President Obama committed to a "soft" exit
from Afghanistan, pledging to begin reducing U.S. forces there by the
summer of 2011. Left unsaid is how quickly the number of U.S. troops
will come down, how many will remain, and for how long. Most
important, there is no mention of what will happen if "conditions on
the ground" remain poor or worsen—i.e., if it turns out that the
Afghan Army and police aren't ready to take over.
There's every reason to believe that they won't be. The president is
clearly hoping the threat of withdrawal will concentrate the minds of
America's imperfect Afghan partners. At West Point, the president
sought to convey a sense of urgency: "The days of providing a blank
check are over." But there is no assurance that this implied threat
will work. Afghan President Hamid Karzai may well see it as a bluff,
concluding that Obama will not walk away from what he months ago
termed a war of necessity, and from interests he recently described as
vital to U.S. national security. And Karzai's probably not wrong.
Just look at Iraq. Even with the knowledge that U.S. troops are
leaving, Iraqi politicians are squabbling over an election law, which
means that the polls scheduled for January could well be delayed. And
even if elections do take place, it's not clear that an effective
government can be formed. Iraq's Kurds, Sunnis, and Shia have yet to
show a consistent willingness to work together peacefully. There is as
yet no accord on how to divide oil wealth. Nor is there agreement on
what to do to allow the country's 4 million refugees and internally
displaced persons to return safely to their homes. Security has
deteriorated of late; we could start seeing a renewed pattern of
bombings and violence.
Then what? Iraq is clearly critical to the stability of one of the
most troubled and important regions of the world, and to America's
core security interests. Rather than risk a slide back into chaos,
Obama should reverse his decision to remove all U.S. combat brigades
by August 2010. In addition, in the election's aftermath, the United
States should offer to renegotiate the bilateral pact that calls for
all U.S. troops to leave by 2011. Just signaling a willingness to
consider staying on might deter Iraqis from escalating their conflict.
SUBSCRIBE sp_inline_article_subscriptionClick Here to subscribe to
NEWSWEEK and save up to 88% »
If Afghans can't begin taking over from the U.S. military by the
summer of 2011, Obama would face a similarly uncomfortable set of
options. Two of them—extending the duration of the surge beyond 18
months and increasing U.S. force levels even more—would be costly by
every measure. Opting for either would also cause a domestic political
firestorm here. The obvious alternative—scaling back dramatically
despite the weakness of the Kabul government and Afghan security forces
—would also trigger furious criticism, in this case for damaging
American prestige and leaving the homeland more vulnerable to
terrorism launched from South Asia.
The only way to square these considerations would be to split the
difference: to stay in Afghanistan, but with fewer troops. One idea
would be to return to pre-surge troop levels and proceed with a policy
of training Afghan military and police forces, improving governance,
reintegrating at least some of the Taliban into society, and carrying
out specific counterterrorism operations. Counterinsurgency would take
a back seat to capacity building. In this case, as in Iraq, a U.S.
presence would be required for some time.
All of which is to say that exit strategies are simpler to design than
to execute. Too often they morph into endurance strategies. Like the
room in Sartre's play, conflicts are easier to get into than out of.
Haass, president of the council on foreign relations, Is Author Of War
of Necessity, War of Choice: A Memoir of Two Iraq Wars.
© 2009
Discuss
Posted By: suethelibertarian @ 12/07/2009 10:59:36 AM
Let me get this straight. the Afghans need security so kids can get to
school so we are arming local militia's around Afghanistan so they can
keep Taliban out.
Okay, Mr. O-bomb-a, kids in Chicago are similarly plauged with lack of
security going to school. Their murder rate is off the charts. Proof
of concept can be accomplished here at home. Lets send tanks into
Chicago and train and arm the good guys. Which ones are the good guys?
Beats me.
Remember, urban warfare does not bring secuity, it breaks buildings
and humiliates the residents that survive. it creates birth defects
like in Fallujah and often fields of land mines remain.
Either admit why we are there or come home. We are broke. Come home.
Posted By: Tan Boon Tee @ 12/06/2009 10:09:28 PM
The president says, ???We shall start pulling out by July 2011.???
The state secretary says, ???That is not a drop-dead deadline.???
The defense secretary says, ???It is the beginning of a process.???
These sound like typical arguable vague statements from top political
leaders, playing with words and contexts as usual.
In short, do not expect a real withdrawal as yet, at least within the
next two years; and if the situation demands, more troops may be
deployed and the timeline extended.
Posted By: Omaar @ 12/06/2009 8:40:55 PM
This what You Gung Ho Ho's Wanted..
If it [[Fails]]
It's McChrystal's Strategy, he Knows what He's Doing, he's on the
Ground.
We Don't Know what we're Getting into.
_________________
Weinbaum: This is not an 18-month commitment. "I was in the White
House last week. I'll give you first-hand what their thinking is --
it's an indefinite commitment. . . .
At 18 months we're going to be evaluating whether our strategy is
working. . . . We're not saying forever....
We might go from 100,000 to 98,000 [troops] if we are succeeding."
01:06:48 We are going around Karzai. "We know we don't have much going
with Hamid Karzai and the central government. You've got to go around
it. Hence the bottom-up approach."
01:09:28 Announcing an exit date was a big mistake. "He [Obama] said
that [the exit date] because he had to for domestic consumption.
" In answer to a question about Afghans and Pakistanis planning around
our announced strategy and therefore hedging their bets, Weinbaum
concurred. "Exactly.
I asked the same question at the White House. This is the
problem. . . . You've made it all al Qaeda. . . .
Media sources in the region [AfPak] played up not the speech [Obama
gave] but the date. . . . An unintended consequence but a serious
one."
01:18:20 "We had better realize what we are facing." "When it appears
we are getting out, there will be a rush to the exit.
What will be the consequence? Very quickly, a return to
fighting. . . .
Iranians and Russians and their clients, Indians and Saudis, all jump
in. . . .
Pakistan picks up their Pashtun card. . . . everyone trying to salvage
what they can for their own interests . . . Afghanistan becomes a
killing field. . .
Taliban come back in to settle scores. . .
There is a refugee crisis and a humanitarian crisis tracked back to
the international command [now in Afghanistan]. . . .
The Taliban, these are not nationalists [as they were before 2001].
Now they all share the idea of an Islamic state in their image. It is
the caliphate for this region."
Success there, by the way, Weinbaum (see 43:43) Gives only a 50-50
chance.
12/6/2009 8:38:01 PM
http://www.newsweek.com/id/225782
chhotemianinshallah
Welcome to the two-way range
Well, I'm here in Kandahar.
In fact, I've been here for a few days now. The information that we've
been receiving, the treatment and access we've been given, the
professionalism and motivation we've been shown has all been
extraordinary. To be honest, it's been like trying to drink from a
fire hose from oh-dark-thirty until the wee hours every day.
The only problem has been connectivity. And we've finally figured out
a work-around for that so that I can post: I'm using a welfare
computer and a memory stick with my photos on it. A bit labyrinthine,
but it's better than gun-tape and baling wire. And I guess I have
something to feed into Lessons Learned after all...
I can let you know now that I'm over here on what's termed a Regional
Media Familiarization Visit, with Jean Laroche of the Journal de
Quebec, Ian Shantz of the Barrie Examiner, and Ian Elliot of the
Kingston Whig-Standard. It's a good bunch.
From left to right, that's Shantz (Big Ian), Elliot (Little Ian),
Laroche, me, and the PAffO who got shafted with babysitting us on this
trip, the ever-patient LCdr Pierre Babinsky. Don't believe what you
hear about him: he's actually a good guy.
Anyhow, the weather at KAF the first night we were here was cold and
rainy. The talcum-powder dust that covers the ground throughout the
area turned into unfathomable lakes of mud. I tried to get Big Ian to
walk in front of me as a depth-finder on the puddles, but he wouldn't
fall for that.
The next day, it cleared up, though, and - touch wood - it's stayed
clear, cold, and windy since then. Hopefully that continues. The mud
still abounds, though. They say the drainage here is so bad, it may
take three weeks of no rain for it to clear out completely. And the
dust/mud in this area has...how shall I put this...an unusually high
fecal content to it. So the folks serving over here are 'in the shit'
in more ways than one.
You'd never know it, though. I'm sure they gripe and complain behind
closed doors like every group of soldiers has since the dawn of armed
conflict. Hell, I'd be worried if they didn't. But overall, this is
the most motivated, high-morale bunch of soldiers, sailors, and airmen
I've ever been around. Believe it or not, the civvies too. More about
that another time...
I've got stacks of stuff to talk to you about. What I don't have is
the time to write about it right now. I've resigned myself to the fact
that I'll run out of time here long before I run out of stories to
tell.
But one more thing I must mention before I sign off and hit the rack:
I need to thank each and every one of you who have hit that "Chip In"
button in the sidebar. I took a financial leap of faith taking this
on, and your help is most appreciated.
posted by Babbling Brooks at 2:21 PM
7 Comments:
jaycurrie said...
Great stuff Damian!
I popped the widget up at my site. Let's see if more people can help
you with expenses.
Be damn careful!
4:18 PM, January 19, 2009
military granny said...
Damian
Good to hear you are over there "playing" in the sandbox.I, like many
others will be here daily to read about your travels and the people
you meet along the way.Take care of yourself.
7:01 PM, January 19, 2009
BBS said...
Good to see you made it in one piece. Looking forward to reading your
reports.
4:38 AM, January 20, 2009
BBS said...
PS. I'm thinking a nice light netbook and a sat phone would come in
real handy right now.
4:42 AM, January 20, 2009
VW said...
Good to see you've made it. Have you tried the cafeterias yet?
7:44 AM, January 20, 2009
she said...
Good to read you made it there safely. The Internet connection issues
has been a big complaint from the hubby as well. Makes it harder to
stay in touch and know everyone is ok when the lines aren't working ;(
9:00 PM, January 20, 2009
Nabweekly.ca said...
That's great news Damian, I'm looking forward to reading your time
with our brave soldiers. Tell them for Nabweekly.ca---Thank you for
your brave service, Stay Safe and prayers for peace.
Stay Safe Damian
12:21 PM, January 24, 2009
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/01/welcome-to-two-way-range.html
chhotemianinshallah
The winning percentage
Some of the brightest military minds in the western world are
discussing the problem of Improvised Explosive Devices (IED’s). Those
Canadians involved at the pointy end defeating those IED’s in
Afghanistan are a contributing part of that discussion, but for
operational security reasons, the lessons learned have been kept from
public sight.
I understand the OPSEC concerns: if the insurgents know how we detect
and defeat their bombs, they’ll change their methods and procedures,
and we’ll have to figure it out all over again. They’re already
adaptive enough, without giving them more hints.
But as I’ve argued before, the Taliban can’t win this conflict on the
ground. The only way they can win is to get the international
community to give up. And while IED’s aren’t a particularly effective
military weapon – at least, not in the numbers they can plant here in
Kandahar – they’re an extremely effective IO weapon, sapping the will
of the Canadian public to support the mission.
To be brutally honest, we’ve been losing the fight for the hearts and
minds of Canadians, largely because we’re surrendering the mental and
emotional battle to the bad guys.
Think about it. Every time they get an IED victory, it’s splashed all
over our news from the moment the casualty is announced at KAF, to the
ramp ceremony, to the repatriation ceremony at Trenton, to interviews
with friends, colleagues, and family. Canadians feel each death
keenly, because we’ve come to value life so much more since the last
time we were involved in a prolonged military conflict. We use the
event of the hundredth death to reflect on the mission, on the human
cost of it. Each time the Taliban gets lucky with an IED, the ripple
effects on public opinion in Canada are huge.
But when our side wins, when we find an IED and defeat it, we clam up
about it because of OPSEC concerns. So the image the public gets is a
skewed one: they’re blowing our boys and girls up with impunity, and
we can’t seem to do anything about it. That's why I’ve been trying to
convince people in uniform for years that while we certainly need to
respect OPSEC issues, we also need to strike a better balance in terms
of informing the Canadian public about our own victories as well, so
that they have some context when the Taliban gets one of their very
few IED victories.
Today, for the first time, I was given a briefing here at the Canadian
HQ at Kandahar Air Field that began to deal with that issue when Capt
Roy Ulrich, the 2IC (second in command) of the Task Force Kandahar
Counter IED (C-IED) Squadron here gave us some first-hand insight into
this secretive ongoing battle.
Countering the IED threat starts with intelligence. Where are the bomb-
builders and those who plant them? Where are the detonators, switches,
and explosives they use to produce the IED’s? Where are the devices
planted? Very little surrounding that intelligence can be revealed to
the public, and for good reason.
But it’s no secret that one of the best solutions to the intelligence
challenge is the local population. IED’s are an indiscriminate weapon,
and according to the CF, half of those killed in Kandahar province
last year were Afghan civilians blown up by insurgent IED’s. So the
Afghans are motivated to help the ISAF forces, on this issue at the
very least.
The Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) are highly motivated to
deal with this threat as well: many, many more of them are killed and
injured by insurgent bombs than Canadians are. So Canadians have been
training them to find and defeat these horrific weapons themselves.
Capt Ulrich told us that the local ANSF are now responsible for
finding 65% of all reported IED’s in Kandahar province, an incredible
statistic, given the fact that their most technologically advanced
detection tool is likely the Mark 1-A1 Eyeball.
Of course, that stat still leaves a good deal to keep ISAF forces, and
specifically the Canadians pretty damned busy. The briefing stated
that disruption of IED networks took a multi-pronged approach:
Neutralize the IED network and leadership
Dismantle IED assembly factories
Interdict component supply lines
Seize key components
Our guys and gals have had some big successes lately on this front.
Sometimes they “neutralize” the IED at the point of attack, like they
did in the failed attack pictured below.
Capt Ulrich was far too professional to gloat over it, but I’ll tell
you flat out I wasn’t sorry in the least to know that that VBIED was
“neutralized” when the driver found out attacking Canadian soldiers is
generally extremely detrimental to one’s continuing good health. In
this case, the enemy was intent on going to hell anyhow, as the
vehicle contained about 1300 lbs of military explosive in the form of
aircraft bombs of Russian design. That would have made an awfully big
bang.
And that’s not the only success Canadians have had recently. On
January 7th of this year:
The most recent operation in the Khakrez and Shah Wali Khot districts
resulted in the seizure of a significant insurgent cache that
contained large quantities of explosives, pressure switches, and well
over 100 commercially manufactured detonators.
The “commercially manufactured detonators” phrase is significant.
Detonators are the most unstable and dangerous element in an IED, and
the homemade ones apparently ruin the day of those making and handling
them on a regular basis. So the Taliban really, really prefer to use
much more reliable commercial products, which are harder to obtain.
When we deny these key components to them, we put a big dent in their
plans.
Unfortunately, even with these largely unpublicized victories, we
still lose soldiers to enemy IED’s. We all know that.
But here’s what we as Canadians don’t already know: that the Taliban
victories plastered all over our media, and imprinted upon the
national consciousness in 2008 represented less than 4% of the total
IED incidents in Kandahar province during that time. And that
percentage has nearly halved from the year before, when it was 7%.
From the graphic above, it’s obvious why we’ve been taking increased
IED casualties - it’s the sheer number of IED attempts, not our
inability to counter them. I asked the Captain about this increase in
IED attempts, and here’s what he said:
The reason the insurgents are turning to this strategy is that it’s
the only one available to them.
Our group spoke with BGen Thompson, the Commander of Task Force
Afghanistan, later in the day, and he addressed this issue in more
detail than the Captain could. The general said that the insurgent
tactics like intimidation of the local population and indiscriminate
IED use that hurts the local population aren’t “consent-building
tactics” that historically win the day in an insurgency.
Furthermore, they’re tactics best countered in the long run by more
policing. Task Force Afghanistan believes Kandahar province requires
4,000 trained police in order to achieve an acceptable security
standard. We currently have close to that number of police on the
payroll in the province, but only 1,000 of them have been fully
trained. As the general stated:
That process needs to be accelerated in order to build Afghans’
confidence in their own security.
Too true, and Canadians – both civilian and military – are working on
doing just that. More IED's killing Afghan civilians means more
support for the coalition and ANSF efforts. More trained and competent
ANSF and coalition troops on the ground means more success countering
that threat. And as the Americans plan to put more troops into the
province and we continue to train up the ANP and ANA, both those
points are being addressed. The Taliban has a plan - that's obvious.
But we have a plan too, and ours has the better chance for success in
the long run.
IED’s continue to be the single greatest threat to Canadian life in
Kandahar, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. But the story
the Canadian public has seen to this point is not the full picture.
Spread this story, and help make sure they do now.
* * * * *
Your contribution helps make this trip possible:
posted by Babbling Brooks at 1:03 PM
2 Comments:
Northtea said...
Damian,
Great post, it provided much needed perspective.
I don't know whose idea it was to send you over there, but that guy is
a frickin' genius.
By the way, I'll be hitting your tip jar with a modest donation once
I'm satisfied that your posts are worthy of some financial
remuneration...You're almost there, keep up the good work.
Apart from missing the family and having an employer that needs you
back behind a desk, I'm betting you'll find it tough to leave the "Big
Suck". That dust has a way of getting under your skin.
I will say this to all of your readers: Damian's trip is a first for
the CF and they will be evaluating its effectiveness. This need not be
a one-time shot, if the blogoshpere proves itself worthy of this kind
of access. So the more you express support by donating, the more other
bloggers link to these posts and expand on them, the more discussion
Damian's trip generates all leads to the increased liklihood that this
will happen again to Damian, or another appropriate blogger.
Yeh, yeh, I know I just infuriated a couple of hundred of you who take
offense to the blogosphere needing to prove itself idea. Well, I have
news for you digitally savvy bloggers, most general officers in the CF
don't know what a blog is. Think about the opportunity to demonstrate
some value to the so very senior, but late adopters in the Canadian
military.
Blogoshere, the world (well, OK, maybe just the CF) is watching,
Damian is doing his part, will you do yours?
6:00 PM, January 20, 2009
Osumashi Kinyobe said...
Good luck while there.
It is true, every loss weakens our resolve, and the IEDS are numerous.
We can't, however, let the bad guys win.
6:14 PM, January 20, 2009
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/01/winning-percentage.html
chhotemianinshallah
Compatriots
I seem to have made an impression upon at least two of the gents I'm
out here with - Ian Shantz and Jean Laroche.
Ian's got me pegged:
Brooks is the biggest talker in the gang. His shaved head is better
than Mr. Clean’s and I swear he can spout the entire military
alphabet.
Given the fact that this is Big Ian's first experience with the
military, he's done an admirable job of trying to take in as much as
he can. Of course, half the time I'm yapping at him, it's just to yank
his chain.
Laroche is the lone francophone reporter in the group - although our
PAffO is entirely bilingual - and he's been a real trouper. No
complaints about the fact that just about the entire visit has been
conducted in english, filing stories fully translated, taking notes
over jet noise, from a crackly speakerphone, in the back of an RG-31.
He's had the nastiest deadlines, too, yet still had time to file this:
Sur le camp, de nombreux journalistes sont présents. Mais pour la
première fois, un bloggeur a été invité par l'armée canadienne. Damian
Brooks, lui-même un ex-militaire, a donc un accès semblable aux
journalistes dit traditionnels. M. Brooks, un vendeur d'assurance, a
créé il y a deux ans The Torch (toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com),
un blogue entièrement dédié aux activités de l'armée canadienne. Et
pour venir en Afghanistan, il a pris deux semaines de vacances!
Motivé, dites-vous?
[Google Translation: At the camp, many journalists are present. But
for the first time a blogger has been invited by the Canadian
military. Damian Brooks, himself a former military has a similar
access to traditional journalists said. Mr. Brooks, an insurance
salesman, created two years ago The Torch
(toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com), a blog dedicated to the
activities of the Canadian army. And to come to Afghanistan, it took
two weeks of vacation! Motivated, you say?] BBS
Jean's coming back in a few months to embed for three weeks when the
troops from Valcartier come in for the Relief in Place (RIP). I think
this experience has really helped him prepare for that trip. I'll
certainly be watching for his reports in the spring.
* * * * *
Your contribution helps make this trip possible:
posted by Babbling Brooks at 3:52 PM
4 Comments:
Mark, Ottawa said...
My quick translation from M. Laroche:
'There are numerous journalists at the base. But for the first time a
blogger has been invited by the Canadian Army. Damian Brooks, himself
ex-military, thus has access similar to that of so-called traditional
journalists. Mr Brooks, an insurance agent, created "The Torch" two
years ago (toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com) [actually just about
three], a blog completely dedicated to the activities of the Canadian
Army. To get to Afghanistan he had to take two weeks holiday!
Motivated, don't you think?'
Mark
Ottawa
4:44 PM, January 22, 2009
A taxpayer said...
This post has been removed by the author.
8:46 PM, January 22, 2009
Mark, Ottawa said...
A taxpayer: It would do you well actually to read/read this blog.
The story you link to has already been posted, with the point that you
make highlighted.
I'm not sure we need your guidance.
Mark
Ottawa
10:02 PM, January 22, 2009
jaycurrie said...
Insurance...Hmmmm. I thought you were basically J2F2 with a day job at
Tim Hortons.
Great coverage.
Thank you!
12:57 AM, January 23, 2009
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/01/compatriots.html
chhotemianinshallah
Patrol, pt.1 - headed to Double K
I'd almost forgotten what oh-dark-thirty looked like, slack and idle
civvie that I am now. And even when I was in, I was never the morning
type.
But I wanted to get some groceries in my gate before the 0600 O-group
for the patrol Laroche and I had been attached to got started, so I
dragged my carcass to the Camp Nathan Smith mess and scarfed something
back. Guys complained about the monotony of the food, but I found it
pretty tasty and the portions were more than ample.
Back to the block for my Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) - helmet,
ballistic eyewear, and flak vest with armour plate front and back. I
paused just long enough on the gravel to look up at the sky for a
moment. With no ambient artificial light at all from Kandahar City,
the moon and stars were particularly spectacular.
Then it was off to orders. Sgt Towers was leading this morning's
patrol out of the KPRT. I had been making a point of striking
conversations with soldiers as much as I could, but I gave Towers his
space - the three troops lost on December 13th were his guys.
The format was reassuringly familiar, but with wall-sized maps on the
table and walls, and a huge whiteboard filled with information, it was
far more detailed than the Field Message Pad scrawlings I remembered,
huddled around a red light on one knee. Of course, my memories were of
a bunch of Officer Cadets training in the woods on exercise. This was
The Real Fucking Thing, with experienced, hardened, professional
soldiers who knew all too well the reality that they were headed into,
so the plan was the best they could devise.
I found it a bit odd that the Sergeant was going to be leading a
patrol with three Warrant Officers and a Major on it, but it was
explained to me that Maj Vance White the PAffO was just there to
babysit us journos (spit), WO Barry Bastow was CIMIC (Civil-Military
Cooperation), and WO Eric Dagenais was SET (Specialist Engineering
Team). It seems the third Warrant, WO Keith Dubé from the Force
Protection Company (mostly from Golf Coy of 2RCR, but with a healthy
sprinkling of reservists) was giving the Sergeant a leadership
opportunity. That was quite the reminder for me of just how
professional our military is: the CF never stops developing leaders,
even in he middle of a war zone.
The mission had two main objectives. The first was to do a village
assessment at Double K, a collection of mud walls and muddier fields
whose unpronounceable name was, as you might expect, made up of two
words that started with a K. While other forces may have entered the
tiny hamlet before the CF arrived in Kandahar, this would be the first
visit by Canadian troops. The second part of the mission would be to
attend the weekly shura at Dand District Centre, a fortified
administrative compound that served as the seat of government for the
district. And then, of course, to get home in one piece - that's a
given.
We rolled out a little while before sunrise: two LAV's in front, one
RG-31, callsign Zulu Forty-Nine Bravo with the two media types (spit)
in the middle, and another LAV bringing up the rear. The intent was to
be at the village when the sun crested the horizon, to surprise them a
bit, and make sure they nobody could surprise us with something
unpleasant. Of course, as all soldiers know, no plan survives first
contact with the enemy. And in Kandahar, one of the enemies is the
terrain.
The right side of the "road" - more a dirt track than anything -
collapsed under the wheels of the first LAV, and we had to back out
behind it. The RG set up covering one direction down the road, the
rear LAV set up covering the other direction, and the other LAV hooked
up a tow cable and started pulling. By the time we were out of the
muck, the sun was up. So much for the planned surprise.
We continued on to the village. The condensation on the windows of the
RG was finally beginning to fade, and I could look out the window,
instead of staring at the gunner's remote video screen. The machine
gun on the top of the vehicle is operated from inside the vehicle, and
the soldier manning it has to stare at the screen and aim it by
joystick. I get motion sick pretty easily, so that job would have had
me puking before long. But with nothing else to look at other than
Vance's ugly mug, it was all I could do to keep my eyes off the roving
images on the video screen.
The soldiers I was with were ambivalent about the RG-31. Great blast
protection, they said, but unreliable as hell. That's the kiss of
death for them: you need to be able to count on your kit not to go NS
all the time. Still, we had no trouble with it on our patrol, and my
delicate stomach appreciated having some blast-resistant windows to
look out.
Upon our arrival at Double K, Jean and I waited in the vehicle while
the soldiers did their 5's and 20's, then hopped down and started
walking with the troops over the frost-covered mud to the outskirts of
the village. We were looking for "pattern of life" indicators - do the
locals look like they're nervous about something, or are they curious
about us? Are there kids around? Is an elder coming out to meet us?
This time, the approach went well. I was told that if the pattern of
life had set anybody's Spidey Sense tingling, we probably wouldn't
have gone into the village at all.
Once the Force Protection troops were satisfied, it was time for WO
Bastow and WO Dagenais to take over.
CIMIC positions are generally staffed by reservists, and Barry Bastow
is no exception. This towering man with a shock of ginger hair under
his helmet hails originally from Newfoundland - surprise, surprise, a
Newf in the Army! - but works as a Halifax firefighter in civilian
life. CIMIC acts as the bridge between the Afghan civilians, and the
CF chain of command. With the help of his interpreter, or Terp, Bastow
was going to bring the Afghan elder's concerns and priorities to the
attention of his commander at the KPRT. At the same time, he was going
to reinforce in the mind of the elder that the way to get things done
in the village was to go through the local shura representative, who
would bring that agenda to the attention of the Dand District Leader.
If you don't reinforce the utility of local governance and civil
society, it will never take proper root.
As the engineer on the team, WO Dagenais' job was to make the
technical assessments of how to do what needed doing. There are
thirteen engineers in the SET team, all capable of working
independently, and all attached to the KPRT. They're extremely
gripped.
We checked out a well that had been dug previous to Canada's arrival
in the province, and discovered it was broken. Whether through poor
construction, or through ignorance on the part of the Afghans as to
how to operate and maintain it, nobody could tell, but it needed
fixing. That's an easy one to do.
Then we headed into the village proper. Most villages in southern
Afghanistan are made up of a collection of family compounds with open
areas for livestock and roofed shelter for the family. The compounds
are surrounded by bulletproof mud walls, which makes each village like
a small fortress. Oh, the 25mm cannon on the LAV can punch holes in
the walls if necessary, but once dismounted troops are inside, it's a
bit of a rat-maze. The pucker factor can get quite high, I'm told. I
wasn't scared - perhaps too stupid or ignorant to be scared - but
surrounded as I was by serious, well-led and well-armed troops, all I
felt was incredible curiosity and a heightened sense of alterness as
we filed into the hamlet.
You'll notice a thin trench leading down the middle of the mud road in
the video above. That's the sewage system for the town. Needless to
say, that was project number two - pun intended - for the CIMIC and
SET guys: laying gravel down to make that road more passable and
sanitary.
The one road through the village was only a few hundred metres long,
and ended at a T with a small irrigation channel that separated the
village proper with another set of fields. The village elder told WO
Bastow through the Terp that dredging the irrigation ditch would be
extremely helpful to the farmers.
This is a more involved project, as the trench runs from one village
to the next, quite a long way. That's something that might require
CIDA money. But Bastow took down the man's concern, told him it was a
bigger project that might require more time and effort to gain
approval and get done, and said he'd bring it up with his bosses. He
then told the elder that the well and road would be easier projects to
attack first, and so would get taken care of quickly.
That done, we retraced our steps to the entrance where we'd started,
with the crowd of Afghan villagers we'd attracted from the beginning
tagging along. The Afghans have the most fascinating faces. Old men,
FAG's (Fighting Age Guys), and young children - all look directly into
the camera in such a frank and disarming way. I could have
photographed them all day.
We marched back across the mud fields, which the melting frost had
made treacherous. Our Terp was walking and talking with WO Bastow,
took one wrong step, and ended up flat on his back in the mud. He
popped back up, more embarrassed than hurt, but after than, I took
particular care in how I placed my weight with each step back to the
RV. Not everyone took the lesson: just as we were at the vehicles, our
trusty PAffO Vance slipped coming up a slope, and went facedown hard
into the mud. Nearly ate his mag. It looked painful, at least to the
ego. Once I had determined he was OK, it was open season for the
razzing, though.
Before we mounted back up, I asked the Warrant for a brief summary of
what we'd accomplished in the village. He graciously complied with my
request.
After kicking as much mud off our boots as we could (and Vance trying
to wash it out of his teeth), it was back into the RG, and off to Dand
District Centre for the weekly shura.
* * * * *
Part 2 of this story...
* * * * *
Your contribution helps make this trip possible:
posted by Babbling Brooks at 4:26 AM
5 Comments:
membrain said...
This is really superb reporting and far better than most I've seen
from embeds with the Canadian Forces.
The quality of the photojournalism is superb. Some of the photos are
National Geographic quality. And the videos really round it all up.
Thanks so much.
1:38 PM, January 23, 2009
Tom said...
...i second that about your photo's and coverage. Appreciate the
video's, makes the point closer to home. I can't believe how flat and
treeless that country is, how do people survive there? Can you take
some shots of the country side?
Keep up the great work!
cheers
Tom
tomax7
11:43 AM, January 24, 2009
Revnant Dream said...
This is real reporting, not CBC trash. Or the rest of the MSM for that
matter.
6:17 PM, January 24, 2009
Raphael Alexander said...
Just amazing work. Every MSM outlet should be reporting about this
embed and putting links to the Torch.
8:38 PM, January 25, 2009
David M said...
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the blog post From the
Front: 01/27/2009 News and Personal dispatches from the front and the
home front.
9:41 AM, January 27, 2009
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/01/patrol-pt1-headed-to-double-k.html
chhotemianinshallah
Patrol, pt.2 - Dand District Centre
I expected it to take a lot longer to travel from Double K to the Dand
District Centre. I don't know why - it's not like I knew the distances
involved or the timings we were trying to meet. I was simply doing
what the guys in uniform told me to.
I should say guys and gal, singular. Our medic, Private McKenzie, was
a female, the only one on the patrol. I chatted with her briefly at
Double K, and she seemed friendly and competent, but quiet. Like she
relished whatever calm she could find outside the wire, knowing she'd
be the busiest soldier there if anything went terribly wrong. A quiet
doc is a good thing.
The drive to Dand District Centre for the weekly shura turned out to
be uneventful. Somewhat comfortable, even, since I'd belatedly figured
out how to properly adjust the five-point harness that buckled me
safely into the RG-31. With the windows unfogging as the sun rose
higher in the sky, I actually had a view other than the side of the
gunner's head, and Maj White's open mouth beside me as he caught a
moment of rack time in transit.
The Centre was bigger than I had imagined it to be. A big plot of mud,
enclosed by a high concrete wall topped with razor-wire and cornered
by guard towers, with two decent-sized buildings in the middle. One
was an ANP building, and one was the administrative building for the
local government. Both were enclosed by a shrapnel-pockmarked wall
that had served to protect a much smaller compound before the new
perimeter had been constructed. Short months ago, a suicide bomber had
somehow made it past the ANP guarding the outer wall, and detonated
near the inner gate. I was told that the blast shattered windows in
the admin building. Looking up at the distance from the gate to the
windows, I got a sense of just how powerful the explosion must have
been. The self-immolating zealot/idiot didn't have nuts and bolts or
ball-bearings or any such shrapnel-enhancing paraphernalia in his
vest, but as you can see in the photos below, he still made quite the
impression on the surrounding infrastructure.
One of the first things we did was wander around the site with the SET
engineer, WO Dagenais, and the Political Officer Alex Caratte - the
pointy-end DFAIT guy at the KPRT. Alex explained that one of his tasks
for the day was to check out rumours that some of the equipment and
materiel that had been bought for the Centre and for the ANP station
had gone missing. And if that was indeed the case, to deliver a
message that "we're here to help, but if you don't take care of what
we give you, more might not be forthcoming." In other words, it was
inspection time.
We headed over to one of the guard towers with the Afghan site
supervisor in conversation with WO Dagenais through the Terp. Two ANP
with dirty blue-grey uniforms and wild hair walked up to me. Neither
looked to be out of his mid-teens yet, although one was on the big
side for his age. The kid extended a dirt-encrusted hand, which I
dutifully shook, and nodded a greeting to him. He spoke one word to
me: "knife." What? One of the soldiers assigned to make sure I didn't
do anything stupid caught my bewildered look and explained "He wants
your knife. They're not shy asking for what they want." I turned back
to this "policeman" and shook my head: no. It seems that was the
answer he was expecting. His mien didn't change one iota as he turned
and walked away. I made a mental note not to snack on the energy bar
in my pocket on the way home: I wasn't putting anything in my mouth
without washing and sanitizing my hands thoroughly first.
We climbed the stairs to an observation post on top of the admin
building. Sheet roofing material was being laid down by a walking fire-
hazard of a man who seemed all too cavalier with his torch, poking the
roofing roll forward with a sneakered foot. The insurance guy in me
had to laugh at the situation: I take pictures of work sites all the
time, but I'd never seen one where workplace safety was the least of
the dangers in your day. In the picture at left, WO Dagenais had just
moved the propane tank from where the worker had placed it, about a
foot away from the flame. The underwriters I know would have puked in
their mouths with worry.
From the top of the building, we had a decent view of the compound and
the countryside around it. For the first time, I noticed a building
outside the wall, but attached to it, and with its own protective
enclosure. The relatively new and unblemished building was apparently
the local school. It had originally been inside the main security
wall, but that had required students to pass through the compound
checkpoints just to get to class. That was potentially dangerous for
the students, and for those inside the compound. So the wall had been
extended to partition the school from the rest of the Centre, with
just a small gate between the two. The kids and teachers could now
enter and exit the school directly through its own main entrance.
Just as I was beginning to wonder when the shura was supposed to
start, we were called down to the District Leader's office. It looked
to be the only room in the building with furniture, and it had a
beautiful rug spread out on the floor. I felt genuinely bad to be
tracking mud into the room on my boots, but when I remarked upon it to
one of my keepers, he said it's been explained to them that we can't
take off our boots when we come in, and they seem to accept that.
Tough to make a run for it in stocking feet, I guess.
Still, we all removed our helmets and ballistic eyewear when we
entered the large office, which doubled as a meeting room. The Dand
District Leader came over and shook all of our hands, one by one. At
only twenty-eight years old, Ahmadullah Nazik is surprisingly young
for his post, especially in a land where age is so venerated. But he
displayed no uneasiness while we were in his office, either with the
Canadian soldiers, or with the Afghan elders in attendance.
We were served hot chai tea in clear tumblers, and I remembered the
admonition of WO Keith Dubé: "Don't drink the chai. It's not the
water, it's the glasses that'll get ya. They don't wash anything
properly. My Lt decided to take his chances, and pissed out his ass
for a few days. I dropped by the can while he was in there moaning and
reminded him: told ya so, sir." I needed no reminder that a Warrant
who was on his third Roto was well worth listening to: no tea for me.
So I was surprised to see both WO Dagenais and Maj White sipping
contentedly at their beverages beside me. Vance explained: "Once
you've gotten GI once, you're good to go." Yeah...I'll stick with
Dubé's advice, thanks very much.
The initial part of the meeting was between Nazik, WO Bastow (the
CIMIC guy), and Alex Caratte. The juxtaposed image of these two
Canadians, one an NCM reservist firefighter, the other a PhD in
PoliSci from the foreign service working seamlessly together will stay
with me for a long time. Alex delivered his message about the
potentially "lost" equipment beautifully - a hammer covered in velvet.
Barry Bastow covered some administrative points that seemed to be a
continuation from the last meeting, and then asked what I'd been
wondering: where are the shura representatives? Nazik replied that
they were arriving one at a time.
He explained to the Warrant that some weeks lots of representatives
come, some weeks only a few. The weeks that they make excuses not to
come when he talks to them, he knows they're scared of something. He
lets them know he can send a contingent of ANP to escort them, but
most decline.
The elders began to file in for the shura, and each walked around the
room shaking our hands in greeting before taking his seat (thanks to
Jean Laroche for the photo). Only nine came this week, less than the
fifteen or so that I was told was about average. There are twenty
shura representatives in the district, who cover a total of 172
villages. Nazik and Bastow, through the Terp, reminded those in
attendance that the local population is supposed to bring security and
development concerns and issues to the attention of the shura
representatives, who can then address those with the Dand District
Leader. The men all nodded their heads - this obviously isn't new for
them. The discussion then segued into which villages at one particular
district border belonged to Dand, and which to another neighbouring
district. There's some confusion, apparently, and some of the elders
joined in animatedly, with loud voices speaking over each other, and
sharp hand gestures.
Administrative business taken care of, apparently, the Warrant then
began to excuse the Canadian contingent. But before we left, he
offered to host a meal the next time they gathered. Nazik replied that
although there are only a couple dozen shura representatives, they'll
each bring drivers, helpers, a full retinue. "Offer to pay," Nazik
said with a smile to Bastow, " and you'll have too many here!" We all
laughed, Afghan and Canadian alike. Then we made our manners and filed
out.
After one more brief inspection of a building, we were back at the
vehicles. I was about to step up on to the back of the RG when WO Dubé
said to our PAffO "Sir, I can take one with me in the back of the
LAV." Vance turned to me, and I grinned and said "Sure thing." Don't
have to ask me twice.
Am I ever glad I did. I was expecting to get stuffed into the back
with the rest of the Force Protection troops. Instead, Dubé opened up
a second hatch for me beside him, showed me how to hook up on the
intercom, and off we went, looking out the back of the rear LAV in the
convoy. The soldiers, who had been outside the building standing guard
the whole time we'd been in Nazik's office, were talking about the ANP
detachment.
"Holy shit, could you smell the pot coming out of their barracks?"
"Yeah. How old do you think they were?"
"About as old as my kid brother."
The countryside was beautiful, as long as you didn't look too closely.
Focus on the distant landscape, and Kandahar is spectacular. Up close,
I found it sad: dirty, decrepit, and poor beyond anything I'd ever
seen. At least that was the impression I got in the rural areas we
passed through, from the mud walls at Double K, to the bare concrete
and mud at the District Centre, to the villages we passed on the way
back to to town.
But in the back of the LAV, countryside gave way to the south of
Kandahar City quickly, and soon we were surrounded by ramshackle
buildings, open shop-fronts, and throngs of people. The shops were
amazing - fruits and nuts, car and truck wheels and tires, sides of
meat hanging from hooks in the dust and sun. Side by side by side by
the road, with boys and men sitting in front of them, staring at us as
we went by.
Most of the kids waved. Very few of the adults did, unless they were
wearing a uniform. I toggled my intercom switch and asked WO Dubé, who
was intently focused on his responsibilities to the rear of us -
especially local vehicles that he thought were getting a bit too close
- about the waving.
"Warrant, I noticed on the chopper on the way in to camp that the door
gunners seem to have been instructed to wave at the locals. Do you
guys have to do that?"
"I got more important things to worry about than playing fucking Queen
in the back of a LAV."
*pause*
"Yeah, we wave sometimes."
I waved, whenever I wasn't snapping shots with my camera. At least, I
waved back when I was waved at. Some of the kids threw rocks instead.
I was told it's like snowballs back home - you throw what's at hand. I
don't know about that. Apparently you've got to watch one doesn't hit
you in the face. The guys have them ping off their helmets all too
frequently, and one had some skin on his nose peeled away just
recently.
But the kids who waved...I had to wave back. There was this one girl,
she couldn't have been more than five. Dressed in aquamarine blue, far
brighter than what most people were wearing. She was standing all by
herself against a wall to the left of us as we drove by, waving and
watching. I waved back, and when she saw me, her arm shot up above her
head and she started jumping and twirling with excitement. I watched
until she disappeared from view.
Most of the time, you keep your emotional walls high around you in a
place like this. It's dangerous, it's unfamiliar, you're surrounded by
serious people, and there's a job to do. Mocking sarcasm, poking fun
at each other, that's OK among the soldiers. But looking at that
little girl, I felt a whole lot more than that, and had to shut it
down pretty quickly. As a parent myself, I wonder what's in store for
her. God, I hope it's a better life than she would have had without
the Canadians in Kandahar.
The Warrant shook me out of my thoughts, explaining what he was
watching for, pointing out some of the important landmarks as we
navigated the congested streets. Some ANP were stopping traffic to let
us through quickly, and everyone seemed to know the ground rules: move
to the side of the road, and don't approach the convoy too closely.
Dubé only had to wave a car back away from us twice the whole way
back.
And then we were on the final leg into the camp. In case you can't
hear him properly, just as I'm waving at a crowd of kids in the video
below, the Warrant tells me that this is the street where Glyn Berry
was killed. That was years ago, and the situation in the city is far
different now, but it was still sobering.
We passed through the ANP checkpoint, then through the Canadian one.
You could feel the tension bleed away, like air hissing out of a tire.
The LAV ground to a halt on the gravel, the rear hatch descended, and
we were out on the ground. The troops headed off to clear their
weapons in the barrels by the wall, and I shook WO Dubé's hand:
"Thanks for the ride, Warrant. It's one I'll never forget."
* * * * *
Your contribution helps make this trip possible:
posted by Babbling Brooks at 1:47 PM
9 Comments:
Raphael Alexander said...
"I got more important things to worry about than playing fucking Queen
in the back of a LAV."
*pause*
"Yeah, we wave sometimes."
ROTFL!!
9:46 PM, January 25, 2009
military granny said...
Damian
Once again a great post. Thank you for bringing Afghanistan into my
home.You have taken a trip to places we only read about, now I will
understand when my son tells me there is no place like the turret of a
LAV. Great writting and video's. Thank you.
11:24 PM, January 25, 2009
jaycurrie said...
Link Posted.
Great story and great reporting!
Thank you.
1:05 AM, January 26, 2009
JR said...
Great stuff, Damian. You paint a clear picture of what the troops have
to deal with over there. They have a daunting task!
Your descriptions of the people, markets, etc bring back memories of
my travels to the hinterlands of Morocco where the impression was -
'straight out of the Middle Ages' (minus the violence of Afstan, of
course).
2:43 PM, January 26, 2009
David M said...
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the blog post From the
Front: 01/27/2009 News and Personal dispatches from the front and the
home front.
9:42 AM, January 27, 2009
MaryAnn said...
Really good stuff, Damian. Love the combination of text, photos, and
video. Looking forward to your next post.
Make sure to tell the guys how much we appreciate all they're doing.
2:54 PM, January 28, 2009
SapientSequitur said...
"Dont drink the chai" LOL! My boyfriend is over there now and he told
me he puked in his mouth a few times trying to get the "tea" down. Got
stuck in his beard, could smell it for the rest of the day!
11:37 AM, July 14, 2009
SapientSequitur said...
"Dont drink the chai" LOL! My boyfriend is over there now and he told
me he puked in his mouth a few times trying to get the "tea" down. Got
stuck in his beard, could smell it for the rest of the day!
11:37 AM, July 14, 2009
Hedgehog said...
Dont Drink The Chai
I was the Cimic guy for Dand/Daman District for 6 months
Drank Chai with Amhadullah Naziks Shura and Saraj Muhammad's Sura
twice a week
The repspect the acceptance to thier hospitality
12:12 AM, August 31, 2009
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/01/patrol-pt2-dand-district-centre.html
bademiyansubhanallah
By Ishaan Tharoor Saturday, Dec. 05, 2009
Members of India's Ladakh Scouts infantry regiment survey a mountain
pass in the Ladakh Range of the Himalayas in the Jammu and Kashmir
region of India.
Mary Knox Merrill / The Christian Science Monitor / Getty
The road to success for President Obama's Afghanistan strategy runs
through India, goes an increasingly familiar refrain. That's because
reversing the Taliban's momentum requires getting rid of the
movement's sanctuary in Pakistan, where the insurgent leadership is
known to be based in and around the city of Quetta. But while Pakistan
is aggressively tackling its domestic Taliban, it has consistently
declined to act against Afghan Taliban groups based on its soil —
because it sees the Afghan Taliban as a useful counterweight to what
it believes is the dominant influence in today's Afghanistan of
Pakistan's arch-enemy, India. Unless India can be persuaded to take
steps to ease tensions with Pakistan, some suggest, Pakistan will not
be willing to shut down the Afghan Taliban.
(Read Joe Klein's take on Obama's speech on Afghanistan.)
Needless to say, that argument is not exactly conventional wisdom in
New Delhi.
Indian influence has expanded after the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in
2001 and toppled the Taliban — it had been a longtime supporter of the
Northern Alliance, the anti-Taliban coalition that dominated the
Karzai government, and it poured hundreds of millions of dollars of
aid into supporting the new regime. That's left many in Pakistan
raising the specter of Indian encirclement — a concern noted by U.S.
General Stanley McChrystal in September, when he said that "increasing
Indian influence in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional
tensions." Some U.S. pundits have even called for India to scale back
its operations in order to appease the Pakistanis.
Indian officials have little time for such reasoning. Events northwest
of the Khyber Pass have had a central place in the strategic
calculations of generations of rulers in Delhi, dating back to the
imperial Mughals and the colonial British. India's ties with Kabul had
lapsed during the bloody civil war that saw the Pakistani-backed
Taliban rise to power in 1996, turning Afghanistan into a hotbed of
extremism, some of it directed against India. In 1999, an Indian
passenger airliner was hijacked by Pakistani nationals and flown to
Afghanistan — negotiating for the release of the hostages, India was
forced to free three Islamist militants, one of whom was later
implicated in the killing of American journalist Daniel Pearl in
Pakistan. The Taliban also forged links with fundamentalist groups
waging war on India in the disputed territory of Kashmir. "The
consequences of that vacuum where Pakistan stepped in and meddled were
horrendous for India," says Harsh Pant, professor of defence studies
at King's College London. "It's a lesson no one in India is in the
mood to learn again."
That's why India has pumped over $1.2 billion in development aid to
the Karzai government, funding infrastructure projects ranging from
highways to hydroelectric dams to a 5,000-ton cold storage facility
for fruit merchants in Kandahar. India is building schools and
hospitals, as well as flying hundreds of Afghan medical students to
train in Indian colleges, because its own experience of the last
period of Taliban rule has given it a vested interest in preventing a
recurrence.
(See pictures of the battle against the Taliban.)
The popularity of Bollywood music and Indian soap operas also hints at
India's significant cultural influence in Afghanistan, which is
buttressed by lasting bonds with Afghanistan's political elite. Afghan
President Hamid Karzai went to university in India, while his
electoral opponent, Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, belongs to the old Indian-
backed Northern Alliance. Kabul and New Delhi also share a common
distrust of Islamabad, seeing the 1996 Taliban takeover as having been
enabled by Pakistan's military intelligence wing.
But in the India-Pakistan relationship, each side often thinks itself
the victim of the other's machinations, and Pakistan's generals view
India's growing influence in Afghanistan as motivated by an intent to
destabilize Pakistan. In recent months, officials in Islamabad have
claimed that India's consulates in the Afghan cities of Kandahar and
Jalalabad have been orchestrating terrorist activity in Pakistan,
particularly in the vast, restive province of Baluchistan. India
vehemently rejects such claims, for which no evidence has been offered
in public. During her trip to Pakistan last month, U.S. Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton also dismissed the notion that India was trying
to foment trouble in Pakistan. "The Pakistani fears are completely
imaginary," says Bahukutumbi Raman, a former top-ranking Indian
intelligence official and prominent strategic analyst.
The problem for Washington, at least according to Raman and other
Indian analysts, is that regardless of their validity, Pakistan's
fears translate into inaction when it comes to tackling the Afghan
Taliban on its soil. "[The Afghan Taliban] are important to the
Pakistanis. They give them a strategic depth," says Raman. Commodore
Uday Bhaskar, director of the National Maritime Foundation, a think-
tank attached to the Indian navy, says the Pakistani military is still
struggling to accept a strategic universe in which India is no longer
its most dangerous enemy. "You get the sense that if [India] does not
loom large as a threat, then the Pakistani military loses much of its
raison d'etre as an institution," says Bhaskar.
(See pictures of Obama visiting Asia.)
Indian analysts fear tensions could be exacerbated by President
Obama's declaration that the U.S. will begin to draw down 18 months
after surging some 30,000 more American troops into Afghanistan. "It
makes political sense for Obama, but the decision has really set the
cat amongst the pigeons in the region," says Bhaskar. "Everyone is
rattled." The prospect that the U.S. will soon depart Afghanistan
makes it even less likely that Pakistan will want to crack down on a
group that could still be a strategic asset in an uncertain
situation.
India, for its part, is unlikely to change its own strategy in
Afghanistan. It is developing a port at Chabahar in Iran, which could
become a key point of entry for Indian goods and materiel into
Afghanistan because Pakistan refuses India land transit rights to the
Afghan border. India also runs an air base at Farkhor in Tajikistan on
Afghanistan's northeastern border — a facility it secured with Russian
support. Neither Moscow nor Tehran want to see the Taliban return to
power, and a growing consensus between Russia, Iran and India — all
traditional backers of the Northern Alliance — could work to prevent
that in the months and years to come. "India may have to hedge its
bets with these regional partners," says Harsh Pant. "When America
leaves Afghanistan, they may be the ones left to deal with the mess."
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1945666,00.html
bademiyansubhanallah
By Robert Baer Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2008
Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden
Al Jazeera / AP
In a talk at the Atlantic Council this week, CIA director-general
Michael Hayden said Osama bin Laden is alive. I'll take his word for
it. But bin Laden's strange disappearance makes one wonder what
exactly happened to him. The last relatively reliable bin Laden
sighting was in late 2001. A video that he apparently appeared in last
year shows him with a dyed beard. More than a few Pakistani
intelligence operatives who knew bin Laden scoff at the idea he would
ever dye his beard. They think the tape was manipulated from old
footage, and that bin Laden is in fact dead. But then again, they
would have an interest in making Americans believe bin Laden is dead,
since it would relieve U.S. pressure to find him by any means
necessary, including going into Pakistani territory.
And what about all the other audiotapes bin Laden has put out since
9/11? Experts will tell you that off-the-shelf digital-editing
software could manipulate old bin Laden voice recordings to make it
sound as if he were discussing current events. Finally, there's the
mystery as to why bin Laden didn't pop up during the U.S. election.
You would think a narcissistic mass murderer who believes he has a
place in history would find it impossible to pass up an opportunity to
give his opinion at such a momentous time, at least by dropping off a
DVD at the al-Jazeera office in Islamabad.
(Read "Barack Obama on Homeland Security.")
I posed these questions to half a dozen of my former CIA colleagues
who have been on bin Laden's trail since 9/11. What surprised me was
that none of them would say for certain whether he is alive or dead.
Half of them assumed he is dead, while the other half assumed he is
alive. I suppose a lot of their timidity had to do with the still open
wounds regarding the CIA's missing an event like Saddam Hussein's
destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. It would be so much
easier to miss the death of a single man.
The important point of Hayden's talk was that Muslims have turned
against bin Laden, realizing that his campaign against the West has
ended up killing more Muslims than it has Islam's enemies. Al-Qaeda
may be picking up adherents in North Africa and Yemen, preparing its
return, but it certainly is no longer in a position to destabilize
Saudi Arabia or any other Arab country. And, although Hayden didn't
say it, there is no good evidence that bin Laden is capable of
mounting a large-scale attack. He failed to pull off an October
surprise, as many in the FBI and CIA feared he would.
Despite all this, whether bin Laden is alive or dead is actually
pretty irrelevant. President-elect Barack Obama has no real choice but
to revitalize the search for him, if only for political
considerations. If al-Qaeda were to attack in the U.S. in the first
months of his term, Obama would end up explaining why he wasn't more
vigilant for the rest of it.
But what if bin Laden really is dead, buried under a hundred tons of
rock at Tora Bora, or so weakened that he might as well be dead?
Indefinitely crashing around Afghanistan's and Pakistan's wild,
mountainous tribal region on a ghost hunt cannot serve our interests.
The longer we leave troops in Afghanistan, the worse the civil war
there will become. One day Obama will need to give up the hunt —
declare bin Laden either dead or irrelevant. He has more important
enemies to deal with, from Iran to Russia.
Baer, a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East, is
TIME.com's intelligence columnist and the author of See No Evil and,
most recently, The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian
Superpower
Read "Why Can't We Find Bin Laden?"
See pictures of the battle against the Taliban.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1859354,00.html?iid=sphere-inline-sidebar
bademiyansubhanallah
By Bobby Ghosh Monday, Oct. 20, 2008
A video still of Osama bin Laden at an unspecified location, from a
tape that aired on al-Jazeera on Sept. 10, 2003
Salah Malkawi / Getty Images
Dalton Fury is the nom de plume of a Delta Force commander who led
U.S. troops into Afghanistan's Tora Bora mountains at the end of 2001,
when Osama bin Laden was in full flight. Fury's new book, Kill Bin
Laden: A Delta Force Commander's Account of the Hunt for the World's
Most Wanted Man, is a riveting account of one of the most important —
but also least understood — battles in the war on terror. It tells of
the bravery of the men under his command, but also of the intelligence
failures that allowed bin Laden and many top al-Qaeda leaders to
escape from the mountains. (Read "Why Can't We Find Bin Laden?"
Fury, who can't use his real name because of security concerns, is now
a private citizen. He spoke with TIME world editor Bobby Ghosh on the
phone from an undisclosed location. Excerpts:
TIME: When you hear a U.S. presidential candidate saying "I promise
we'll kill Osama bin Laden," what runs through your mind?
Dalton Fury: What runs through my mind is that it doesn't really
matter who is going to go in the White House next year. If there's no
intelligence on where [bin Laden is] located, then you can have Mickey
Mouse in the White House. If they had good actual intelligence now,
they would have hit him a Hellfire missile, or even potentially sent a
special team in there. But it's just not as easy as saying, "When I
get elected, I'll kill him," because if we knew where he was now, we
would have already made the attempt.
Are we getting better intelligence now?
I think we're always improving. We're trying to build a better
mousetrap, but you know, it's hard to fight [al-Qaeda] with
conventional weaponry. The answer isn't always money. You can buy a
thousand more Predator drones and put them over there and clog the
airspace, but they're not stupid — they know when the Predators are up
there. So yeah, we're going to make them fly higher and have more
powerful cameras and all that stuff, but I think that because [al-
Qaeda leaders] live in mud huts and they're barely washing and bathing
themselves ... that we somehow treat them as if they are inferior
human beings.
How aware were they of your abilities, the abilities of the Delta
Force?
I'd be naive to say that they weren't aware of it. I think they're
smart enough and have shown a propensity to understand how the
Internet works and how to get around being discovered by using various
means.
The view that exists in the U.S. is that bin Laden is living in a cave
somewhere, that he's cut off from the rest of the world.
Bin Laden garners a lot of support from people because he has the
ability and the willpower to live in austere conditions, to live like
the average Afghani or the average Pashtun — without a lot of creature
comforts. It's hard for a Western mind to realize that bin Laden is
perfectly comfortable with a couple of meals a day of flat bread and
some rice, as long as he can read the Koran and put out his audio and
videotapes when he sees fit. It's hard to imagine anybody, any leader
in the West, to have the ability to do that, but he's shown that he
can certainly do that.
What have you learned about him, his personality or his lifestyle that
surprises you?
My book talks about him surrounding himself with individuals of his
blood type, which I thought was very interesting. If he's wounded,
then he has a guy with the same blood who can give him a transfusion.
But that's completely counter to the legend that bin Laden's
bodyguards have been ordered to kill him if he is wounded in a battle.
If that was true, in my personal opinion, he would have stayed in Tora
Bora and not ran. That surprised me very much. I really thought he
would stay and fight as he advertised.
The other thing that surprised me was that [during the fighting in
Tora Bora] he actually told his women and children to arm themselves
and come out of the caves and fight the Americans. For a man of bin
Laden's stature, who puts so much credence in the Koran and the
afterlife and paradise, it seemed like he reduced himself to an actual
human being, with actual fears and concerns for his own health, his
own survival. In his sermons and tapes, he appears above those
concerns, yet here he was, asking the women and children to do the
fighting for him.
When detectives track a serial killer for a long time, they can
sometimes get in his head — and they can anticipate his next move. Do
you feel the same way about bin Laden?
I don't think we know that much about his personality, to tell you the
truth. He's obviously been very evasive over the years, and you're not
getting a lot of people walking in with information.
What is it that people in the U.S. still don't get about bin Laden
that you think they ought to?
I think they don't get how powerful this Islamic religion is and how
powerful the Koran can be to a very small percentage, a minute
percentage, of the Muslim community — people who will, in the name of
bin Laden or in the name of jihad or like al-Qaeda ideology, strap on
a suicide bomb or get into a bomb-laden vehicle, and blow up a hotel
or a checkpoint — all in the name of bin Laden.
I think that he has such enormous magnetism that you almost have to
respect it. No American is going to strap a bomb to himself and go
kill someone in the name of Barack Obama or John McCain — that's not
going to happen.
Many Americans think, Hey, come on, we're offering a reward of $25
million. We've been looking for this guy for seven years — so come on,
what's the big deal? How hard can it be? But when you actually get
around those people [who shelter the al-Qaeda leaders], you see how
honorable they are, how independent they are, how hospitable they are,
all according to their religion. It's much different than communism,
you know. We never faced that in the Cold War. This truly is a
different enemy here.
Where did you come up with Dalton Fury? It's a great name.
Simple Google search: it wasn't taken. It's pretty far from my true
name.
What's next for you?
I have no idea. I'm a private citizen, and I think I'll just spend
family time and watch the news and see when we finally grab bin Laden.
I hope it's a violent death. I hope he doesn't die of old age or
health reasons. Personally, I think he needs to die the same way that
3,000 individuals died on 9/11.
You don't want to see him being tried first?
I don't want to see him be tried, no. I don't think anybody does. I
think it would be a circus. With Saddam Hussein, it was probably a
good idea that he was tried because millions of [Iraqis] hated him —
he terrorized the majority of the country. No one in Afghanistan or
Pakistan really hates bin Laden, so you don't have those millions of
enemies that Saddam had.
Killing him, it might make him a martyr, that's O.K. I think [the
terrorists will] soon forget about it. I think they'll lose their
stomach for the fight when they see the mighty bin Laden was
vulnerable and was finally taken out. I don't think they'll have an
easy time replacing him. I know the other top tier [al-Qaeda
leadership] can barely get along as it is, they all don't particularly
like each other. I don't think there's anybody that can bring the
following out like bin Laden can.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1852005,00.html
bademiyansubhanallah
Many fear Taliban will wait out U.S. troop presence
December 2, 2009
It's commonplace to hear Afghans describe a rush of mixed feelings
when a Western military convoy roars past. They're glad for the
protection from insurgents, but they don't want foreign soldiers in
their homeland forever.
So President Obama's pledge to send more troops now to fight the
Taliban -- coupled with talk of an eventual pullout -- is a message
that resonates with many here.
Still, there are misgivings. Some Afghans fear that the U.S. strategy
will prompt the Taliban to simply wait out the Western presence. The
militants, they warn, will melt away in the face of new U.S.-led
offensives, biding their time in the countryside or in Pakistan until
the foreigners are gone and they can seek to seize power again.
An American exit strategy "is not a good idea," said Mohammad Omar,
governor of Kunduz, a northern province where insurgents have made
significant inroads in recent months. "Afghan forces won't be in a
position for a long, long time to safeguard our country."
But in a reflection of Afghanistan's powerful tradition of national
pride and mistrust of outsiders, others said it was time for this
country to begin standing on its own.
"We need to strengthen our own army," said Sangiwal, an advisor to the
governor of violence-ridden Helmand province, who uses only one name.
"Sending more troops is a good idea for now. But look how many, many
times more expensive one American soldier is, compared to an Afghan
one!"
Some worry that their remote town or region might find itself left out
in the cold if the new emphasis is on securing large urban areas and
curbing the insurgency in its main strongholds, in the south and east.
"It's not a good situation if only the big cities are safe while
places like the west are insecure," said Abdul Qadir, a provincial
council member in largely rural Farah, in the west.
Abdul Hamid, a 23-year-old student at Kabul University, said he could
remember little other than civil war, followed by Taliban rule, then
the battle to keep the insurgents at bay.
"I wonder if this war will ever end," he said.
-- Laura King laura...@latimes.com
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-afghans-speech2-2009dec02,0,2692857.story
chhotemianinshallah
AFP 9 December 2009, 01:08pm IST
WASHINGTON: Killing or capturing Osama bin Laden is the key to
defeating the al-Qaida terror network, the top US military commander
in Afghanistan told US legislators on Tuesday.
"I believe he is an iconic figure at this point whose survival
emboldens al-Qaida as a franchising organization across the world,"
said General Stanley McChrystal, testifying in Congress about the US
military surge of forces in Afghanistan.
"It would not defeat al-Qaida to have him captured or killed, but I
don't think that we can finally defeat al-Qaida until he's captured or
killed," McChrystal told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
US officials believe that bin Laden -- considered the chief mastermind
of the attacks of September 11, 2001 on New York and Washington that
killed nearly 3,000 people -- is hiding along the mountainous Afghan-
Pakistani border.
US ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry, also testifying at the
hearing, said that capturing or killing bin Laden "does remain
important to the American people -- indeed, the people of the world."
McChrystal and Eikenberry testified about the renewed push in the
Afghan war after US President Barack Obama ordered an additional
30,000 troops to the country.
US national security adviser James Jones told CNN on Sunday that the
latest intelligence reports suggest that bin Laden "is somewhere
inside north Waziristan, sometimes on the Pakistani side of the
border, sometimes on the Afghan side of the border, hiding in very,
very rough mountainous area, generally ungoverned."
However Defense Secretary Robert Gates, also speaking Sunday, said in
an interview that Washington did not know where bin Laden was and had
lacked reliable information on his whereabouts for years.
A recent Senate report said Bin Laden was "within the grasp" of
American forces in late 2001 but escaped because then-defense
secretary Donald Rumsfeld rejected calls for reinforcements.
bademiyansubhanallah
December 10, 2009
A week or so before President Barack Obama announced his decision to
send 30,000 additional American troops to Afghanistan, the evening
news played striking video footage of the horror of combat in the
mountains of that war-torn country. The documentary filmmakers had
gone behind the lines with Taliban fighters to capture their dogged
struggle against the coalition forces.
The video images were largely what you'd expect, staccato rifle fire
mixed with bursts of heavy machine gun fire, all punctuated by the
thump of exploding mortar rounds and hand grenades.
But one feature of the video was particularly conspicuous. The Taliban
warriors were dressed in traditional Afghan garb -- they wore heavy
robes and turbans. Unlike the U.S. soldiers they were fighting, they
had no helmets, no body armor, no night vision goggles and no apparent
communication equipment.
The enemy doesn't ride to the battlefield in Stryker armored vehicles
or heavily armed half tracks. It doesn't have M1 Abrams tanks at its
disposal to shell enemy positions and give armored support on the
front lines.
The Taliban can't call in air strikes from aircraft carrier based
fighter bombers . . . after all, they have no air force or navy. There
would be no B-1 or B-52 bombers dropping precision laser-guided bombs
on enemy positions.
The Taliban have no AH-64 Apache or UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter
gunships rolling in on enemy positions launching Hellfire and Hydra
rockets and strafing them with .canons and heavy machine gun fire.
Unlike coalition forces who can fight the war remotely, the Taliban
have no sophisticated drone aircraft for surveillance and laser guided
missile attacks on enemy positions. The Taliban have no access to
computerized images of battlefield conditions and enemy positions to
assist in planning their combat strategy.
They have no sophisticated medical evacuation technology, and their
field medical units are most likely caves in the mountains. When their
soldiers lose a limb in battle, they won't be fitted with the modern
prosthetics our soldiers use, they'll just be given a wooden crutch
and told to cope.
It's a classic David and Goliath battle being waged in the mountains
of northeastern Afghanistan. The technological deck is totally stacked
against the Taliban and al-Qaida forces. Many assume that with our
military superiority, we should be able to squash the enemy like a
bug.
But, the Taliban and al-Qaida are fighting our coalition forces to a
standstill with mortars, roadside bombs, and IEDs. The very name,
Improvised Explosive Device, speaks volumes about the enemy's primary
weapon system. They're making do with the materials at hand.
Despite the fact that U.S. troops are better armed, better trained and
better provisioned, we definitely have our work cut out for us. We are
battling formidable foes. And no one should make the mistake of
doubting their courage and determination. They've been fighting in
these mountains for decades in a desperate struggle to protect their
homeland from foreign invaders. In three bloody wars against the
British, and, more recently, a 10-year year war against the Soviets,
they haven't lost yet.
David may be our hated enemy and the devil incarnate, but he's one
hell of an intrepid fighter, battling against the world's greatest
superpower and so far holding his own against enormous odds. As we
send those 30,000 reinforcement troops into battle, no one should
underestimate our enemy's resolve.
Gerald D. Skoning is a Chicago lawyer who served as a Navy officer in
the Vietnam War.
Copyright © 2009, Chicago Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped1210enemydec10,0,6298500.story
bademiyansubhanallah
The Associated Press
Wednesday, December 9, 2009; 11:48 PM
KABUL -- The Taliban have threatened to retaliate against South Korea
for its decision to send troops back into Afghanistan.
A statement e-mailed to media outlets late Wednesday said that South
Korea's leaders "should be prepared for the consequence of their
action, which they will certainly face."
South Korea has pledged to send 350 troops next year to protect its
civilian aid workers.
The country has had no forces in Afghanistan since 2007, when it
withdrew some 200 troops. The pullout, though previously planned,
followed a hostage standoff in which the Taliban killed two South
Koreans after demanding Seoul immediately withdraw troops.
The Taliban statement said South Korea had committed to permanently
withdraw forces in exchange for the hostages' freedom.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/09/AR2009120905077.html?nav=ft_world
bademiyansubhanallah
Many Afghans prefer decisive rule to disarray of Karzai government
By Griff Witte
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
LAGHMAN, AFGHANISTAN -- Like nearly all provinces in Afghanistan, this
one has two governors.
The first was appointed by President Hamid Karzai and is backed by
thousands of U.S. troops. He governs this mountainous eastern Afghan
province by day, cutting the ribbons on new development projects and,
according to fellow officials with knowledge of his dealings, taking a
generous personal cut of the province's foreign assistance budget.
The second governor was chosen by Taliban leader Mohammad Omar and,
hunted by American soldiers, sneaks in only at night. He issues edicts
on "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan" stationery, plots attacks against
government forces and fires any lower-ranking Taliban official tainted
by even the whiff of corruption.
As the United States prepares to send 30,000 additional troops to
Afghanistan to bolster Karzai's beleaguered government, Taliban
leaders are quietly pushing ahead with preparations for a moment they
believe is inevitable: their return to power. The Taliban has done so
by establishing an elaborate shadow government of governors, police
chiefs, district administrators and judges that in many cases already
has more bearing on the lives of Afghans than the real government.
"These people in the shadow government are running the country now,"
said Khalid Pashtoon, a legislator from the southern province of
Kandahar who has close ties to Karzai. "They're an important part of
the chaos."
U.S. military officials say that dislodging the Taliban's shadow
government and establishing the authority of the Karzai administration
over the next 18 months will be critical to the success of President
Obama's surge strategy. But the task has been complicated by the fact
that in many areas, Afghans have decided they prefer the severe but
decisive authority of the Taliban to the corruption and inefficiency
of Karzai's appointees.
When the Taliban government was ousted in 2001 following five
disastrous years in power, a majority of Afghans cheered the departure
of a regime marked by the harsh repression of women and minorities,
anemic government services and international isolation. Petty thieves
had their hands chopped off, and girls were barred from school.
Today, there is little evidence the Taliban has fundamentally changed.
But from Kunduz province in the north to Kandahar in the south, even
government officials concede that their allies have lost the people's
confidence and that, increasingly, residents are turning to shadow
Taliban officials to solve their problems.
Pashtoon said that on a recent visit to Kandahar, he heard from
constituents who were pleased with the Taliban's judges. "Islamic law
is always quicker. You get resolution on the spot," he said. "If they
had brought the case to the government courts, it would have taken a
year or two years, or maybe it would never be resolved at all. With
the Taliban, it takes an hour."
For many Afghans, there is no choice. Across broad swaths of the
country, especially Afghanistan's vast rural areas, the government has
little to no presence, leaving the Taliban as the only authority.
Shadow government officials collect taxes, forcing farmers at gunpoint
to turn over 10 percent of their crops, according to accounts of
officials and residents. Taliban district chiefs conscript young men
into the radical Islamist movement's army of insurgents, threatening
death for those unwilling to serve. And the Taliban's judges issue
rulings marked by a ruthless efficiency: With no jails in which to
hold prisoners, execution by hanging or automatic rifle is the swiftly
delivered punishment for convicted murderers and rapists, or for
anyone found guilty of working with the government.
"Whether people like them or not, they have to support them," said
Fatima Aziz, a parliament member from Kunduz, a province where she
said the shadow government has emerged only in the past year.
There are no clear lines between the Taliban's fighting force and its
shadow administration. Insurgents double as police chiefs; judges may
spend an afternoon hearing cases, then take up arms at dusk.
But the shadow government represents an essential element of the
Taliban's strategy. The Taliban emerged in the mid-1990s as an
alternative to the lawlessness of the warring mujaheddin factions, and
its leaders quickly imposed rigid rules of order in areas under their
control.
Having been forced underground or into exile in 2001, the Taliban has
returned not just to wage war but also to demonstrate that it is
capable of delivering a different model of governance from the one
offered by Karzai and his allies. Afghans who live under Taliban
control say the group's weaknesses remain the same as during the
movement's five-year tenure ruling the country. The Taliban provides
virtually no social services, leaving Afghans on their own when it
comes to health care, education and development.
Fed up with corruption
Hajji Hakimullah, a 38-year-old shop owner in Laghman's central city,
Mehtar Lam, said he celebrated when the Taliban was ousted in 2001
because he believed the movement's extremist ideology was sending the
country backward at a time when it should have been modernizing.
But after eight years of Karzai's government, he said he would happily
welcome the Taliban's return. Government officials, he said, have
demanded hundreds of bribes just to let him operate his modest fabric
shop, and he can't take any more corruption.
"If he was honest, I would accept even a Sikh from India as my
governor. But if my own father was governor and he was corrupt, I
would pray that Allah destroys him," said Hakimullah as he sipped a
murky cup of tea, his walls lined with a kaleidoscopic array of
silks.
The Karzai-appointed governor of Laghman, Lutfullah Mashal, has
developed what some fellow officials and residents here say is a well-
earned reputation for corruption.
The governor, they say, has pocketed money from the sale of state
lands, earned profits on the local timber trade and stalled
international development work until the contractors pay him bribes.
The provincial council chief, Gulzar Sangarwal, played an audio
recording for a Washington Post reporter that he said involved a
provincial official insisting that a bridge construction project would
not move forward until the governor was paid at least $30,000.
The authenticity of the tape could not be independently verified.
Mashal, in an interview, denied taking any bribes and said local
contractors had turned against him because he demanded high-quality
work.
Fearsome but clean
While Mashal is viewed with contempt by many residents, the shadow
governor, Maulvi Shaheed Khail, is regarded as fearsome but clean. A
former minister in the Taliban government, he became the shadow
governor here last year after being released from government custody.
Residents said he spends most of his time in exile in Pakistan but
occasionally crosses the border to discuss strategy with his
lieutenants.
This year, Taliban forces took full control of several Laghman
villages, forcing 1,700 families linked to a pro-government tribe to
flee. The families now live in a squalid camp on the edge of Mehtar
Lam.
The tribe's leader, Malik Hazratullah, said that back in his home
village, "there is no stealing, there is no corruption. The Taliban
has implemented Islamic law."
By contrast, he said, provincial officials regularly steal wheat, oil
and flour intended for the refugees in the camp and sell it on the
black market.
"When I see what this government is doing, it makes me want to join
the Taliban," said Hazratullah, a massive, one-eyed man whose beard
extends to his chest.
But Hazratullah has already cast his lot with the United States and
Karzai, and he said it would be nearly impossible for him to switch
back now.
If the Taliban government ever returns to power across Afghanistan,
Hazratullah said, he has no doubt what will happen: "They will cut off
my head."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/07/AR2009120704127.html
bademiyansubhanallah
New strategy will target die-hard fighters, Petraeus says
By Karen DeYoung and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 10, 2009
The United States will step up its counterterrorism activities in
Afghanistan as part of President Obama's new strategy as it seeks to
"kill or capture" insurgents outside densely populated areas and those
deemed unlikely to change sides, Gen. David H. Petraeus said
Wednesday.
The chief of the regional U.S. Central Command told the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee that "additional mission force elements" would be
sent to Afghanistan in the spring, but he declined to provide details
in an open congressional hearing.
Although such "elements" have not been publicly discussed in the
administration's strategy announcements, counterterrorism efforts --
missiles fired at specific insurgent targets from unmanned aircraft
and bombs from manned planes, as well the use of Special Forces units
and intelligence surveillance -- are expected to increase along with
the deployment of 30,000 more U.S. ground troops.
The use of air attacks in Afghanistan has been curtailed in recent
months as Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the U.S. and NATO commander
there, sought to avoid civilian casualties. But as described by
Petraeus, the new concentration on pushing the Taliban out of
population centers will allow more robust action against fighters in
the countryside.
U.S. drone attacks have been used extensively against al-Qaeda and
Taliban targets in Pakistan, although their frequency has diminished
recently as the Pakistani military has been engaged in a ground
assault in South Waziristan. Obama has warned Pakistan that it must
step up its effort in that region and others along the border it
shares with Afghanistan or risk an escalation of U.S. activity.
Pakistan has prohibited any U.S. units from engaging in ground
operations in its territory. Petraeus acknowledged Pakistani concerns
that expanded U.S. operations in Afghanistan would be likely to drive
more insurgents across the border. Such actions will have to be
closely coordinated between the two governments, he said, adding, "We
have to be realistic that there's a limit . . . they say you can only
stick so many short sticks into so many hornets' nests at one time."
Petraeus testified along with Karl W. Eikenberry, the U.S. ambassador
in Kabul, and Deputy Secretary of State Jacob Lew in the latest of a
series of hearings to detail the new strategy. Outlining a civilian
"surge" to accompany the military expansion, the two diplomats said
they expected a total of 974 civilians on the ground by early next
year, a number they said would probably grow by 20 to 30 percent by
the end of 2010.
Senators sharply questioned the officials about remarks Tuesday by
Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who said he anticipated a U.S. combat
presence in his country for five more years -- about the same timeline
Obama described, beginning with an initial troop escalation that
started in the summer and leading to a withdrawal that would start in
July 2011, depending on Afghan capabilities. Karzai said he envisioned
U.S. funding for Afghanistan's own security forces to continue for 15
years, a cost that Petraeus estimated would total about $10 billion a
year.
Noting that Karzai's timeline would extend to 2024, Sen. Robert
Menendez (D-N.J.) noted that "we're talking about $150 billion just on
the security side," for Afghan forces alone, "before we get to the
development side."
An increase in the size of the Afghan army and national police force
is a major part of Obama's strategy. Listing "metrics" that will be
used to measure progress, Petraeus said the target for the army is
134,000 fully trained Afghan soldiers -- compared with about 94,000
now, many of whom are not considered adequately trained or even on
regular duty -- by the end of 2010. Additional targets will be set for
the future years depending on the initial results, he said.
Petraeus also provided additional details on plans to "reintegrate"
Taliban fighters into Afghan society or security forces with monetary
and other incentives. He described a new Force Reintegration Cell,
headed by a retired British general who held the same job under
Petraeus when the latter was the U.S. commander in Iraq, that will
identify insurgents likely to switch sides if provided the right
incentives.
Those who cannot be reintegrated "can be killed, captured or run off,"
Petraeus said. But the idea, he said, was to make individual fighters
"part of the solution instead of part of the problem." U.S. commanders
in Afghanistan said Wednesday that they are funding a raise in Afghan
military pay -- from $180 a month to about $240 for an entry-level
soldier, along with other tangible benefits -- to compete with the
Taliban, which offers up to $300 a month.
The strategy also includes development of "community defense" forces,
tapping local leaders to defend their territory in conjunction with
coalition and Afghan forces. That effort has long been pushed by the
U.S. Special Forces Command, which has argued that the extremely
localized nature of Afghan culture should be matched by a localized
U.S. approach.
"It's a village-by-village, valley-by-valley effort," Petraeus said,
"and we're using some of our best Special Forces teams right now to
really experiment with this."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/09/AR2009120904132.html
bademiyansubhanallah
By ANNE FLAHERTY
The Associated Press
Thursday, December 10, 2009; 12:11 AM
KABUL -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates has told a group of Afghan
soldiers that the U.S. will be their partner for a long time despite
plans to begin pulling troops out in 2011.
Addressing a crowd of Afghan troops at Kabul airport, Gates said the
U.S. looks forward to the day the Afghans can take control of their
country but "we will have a large number of forces here for some
period beyond that."
He said the U.S. relationship with Afghanistan is "forged in blood"
and said the U.S. "will see it to the end."
Afghan officials thanked Gates and said it was a relief to hear the
U.S. would not abandon them in 18 months.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/10/AR2009121000058.html
bademiyansubhanallah
December 9, 2009 9:31 p.m. EST
McChrystal outlines strategy
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
McChrystal: "I think Afghanistan is critical to stability and the
future of security of Pakistan"
U.S. deployment would bring number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan to
nearly 100,000
Washington (CNN) -- Rank-and-file Taliban fighters in Afghanistan are
tired and weakening, with some making offers to drop out of the
conflict, the top U.S. commander there said.
In a rare in-depth interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour on
Wednesday, Gen. Stanley McChrystal said Taliban leaders who operate
from safe havens remain confident and optimistic. But recent
operations by U.S. and allied troops have pushed back the Taliban "in
a number of areas" and caused "a tremendous amount of angst" in the
Islamic militia's ranks, he said.
"Their fighters are tired. We see a number that have already made
extensive overtures to reintegrate back into the government,"
McChrystal said. "So I think we've got an insurgency that is sitting
safely in what they consider are safe havens. They are trying to
exhort their forces who are closer to the fight, but the forces are
having a tremendous problem right now and tremendous weakening."
But he said he is is particularly concerned about the security and
stability of Pakistan, which is fighting its own campaign against the
Taliban and has nuclear weapons.
"I think Afghanistan is critical to stability and the future of
security of Pakistan, and I think the government of Pakistan
understands that as well," McChrystal said.
U.S. President Barack Obama announced last week that he will be
sending another 30,000 U.S. troops into the 8-year-old Afghan war,
which was launched in response to the September 11, 2001, attacks on
New York and Washington. McChrystal spoke with Amanpour a day after
testifying to Congress about Obama's new plan for the war, which also
sets a July 2011 date for the beginning of a U.S. withdrawal.
The deployment would bring the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan to
nearly 100,000. At least 25 other NATO countries are offering to
contribute another 7,000 troops as well, joining about 42,000 NATO-led
troops now in the country.
Video: Amanpour: Gen. McChrystal
Video: Afghan war commander speaks McChrystal, who commands both U.S.
and NATO forces, said the Taliban insurgency could still destabilize
Afghanistan "to the point that it would be a real risk to the region"
and allow the return of al Qaeda, the terrorist network behind the
9/11 attacks.
Amanpour asked McChrystal why everyone was so queasy about the term
"defeat" in Afghanistan.
"It is interesting, because in military definition, 'defeat' does not
mean eradicate or wipe out an enemy," he said. "It means prevent them
from being able to accomplish their mission. That, in fact, is what we
are trying to do with the Taliban. To the degree to which we can
degrade their capability, prevent them from access to the population,
and increase Afghanistan's ability to protect its own sovereignty, we
have defeated the Taliban from being an existential threat to
Afghanistan."
McChrystal emphasized the importance of working with the Afghan
government to help protect the Afghan people and provide time and
space for better security and improved governance.
"As we provide security, there must be nation-building that occurs.
But it occurs under Afghan leadership with international assistance.
It cannot be a product delivered; it must be a process enabled for the
Afghans," he said. "They are going to need a lot of assistance and
partnership from the international community. And I think we need to
offer that to them, but we also need to remember that the
responsibility ultimately lies with Afghans."
Their fighters are tired. We see a number that have already made
extensive overtures to reintegrate back into the government.
--U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal
McChrystal also explained the counterinsurgency strategy he's using
in Afghanistan, a strategy that some have likened to spreading ink
blots on paper.
"We will work with Afghan partners to establish security zones, and
gradually those security zones will grow in size", he said. "And that
as they connect to each other, they provide the ability for an Afghan
farmer, for example, to raise crops in the central Helmand River
valley and then to move with full security up to the markets of his
choice. It might be Lashkar Gah. It might be Kandahar."
But McChrystal said he was cautious about drawing parallels between
the conflict in Afghanistan and the Vietnam War.
"I believe that looking at lessons on experiences like Vietnam is
critical," he said. "I don't think you should take counsel of your
fears on everything you see, because every situation is unique."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/12/09/afghanistan.mcchrystal/
bademiyansubhanallah
Top general says Afghan war "no more hopeless" than Iraq was during
2007 troop surge.
THE WASHINGTON POST
Thursday, December 10, 2009
WASHINGTON — The United States will step up its counterterrorism
activities in Afghanistan as part of President Barack Obama's new
strategy as it seeks to "kill or capture" insurgents who are outside
densely populated areas and deemed unlikely to change sides, Gen.
David Petraeus said Wednesday.
The chief of the regional U.S. Central Command told the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee that "additional mission force elements" would be
sent to Afghanistan this spring, but he declined to detail them in an
open congressional hearing.
Although such "elements" haven't been publicly discussed in the
administration's strategy announcements, special counterterrorism
efforts — missiles fired at specific insurgent targets from drones and
bombs from manned aircraft, as well the use of Special Forces units
and intelligence surveillance — are expected to increase along with
the deployment of 30,000 more ground troops.
Petraeus also told lawmakers that progress will come more slowly from
the Afghan troop surge than it did during a similar U.S. escalation in
Iraq, predicting intensified combat in coming months.
Petraeus commanded U.S. forces in Iraq in 2007 and 2008, and he had
often called the situation in Iraq "hard but not hopeless."
On Wednesday, the general told senators that Afghanistan is "no more
hopeless" than Iraq was.
"There's no question you've got to kill or capture those bad guys that
are not reconcilable," he said. "And we are intending to do that."
Additional material from the Los Angeles Times and The Associated
Press.
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/world/2009/12/10/1210usafghan.html
bademiyansubhanallah
By Bill Roggio
December 10, 2009 11:25 AM
The US has conducted the first unmanned airstrike in the lawless
tribal agency of South Waziristan since the Pakistani Army launched an
offensive there in mid-October.
The strike, carried out by unmanned Predator or Reaper attack
aircraft, hit a Taliban "hideout" in Tanga in the Ladha region in
South Waziristan. Ladha is one of several Taliban strongholds that
were the target of the Pakistani Army's offensive against the Mehsud
branch of the Taliban in South Waziristan.
Four al Qaeda operatives and two Taliban fighters were killed in the
attack, according to reports from the region. "Eyewitnesses said the
toll could be mount," Geo News reported. It is not known if senior al
Qaeda or Taliban commanders were killed in the attack.
The Pakistani military denied that the US carried out an airstrike in
Pakistan today, but US officials contacted by The Long War Journal
confirmed the strike. The Pakistani military also denied that two
other strikes carried out in October took place; these strikes were
later confirmed, however.
"The Pakistani Army doesn't want US interference in their operation in
South Waziristan," one offical told The Long War Journal. "Their [the
Pakistanis' operation in South Waziristan] is winding down and they
haven't achieved their goal: to kill or capture Hakeemullah Mehsud and
Taliban's leadership, and they don't want to be one-upped by the US."
The Pakistani military has claimed that 594 Taliban fighters and 80
soldiers have been killed during the South Waziristan operation (five
Taliban fighters and a soldier were reported killed today), which
targeted Hakeemullah's forces in the Mehsud tribal areas. The military
has ignored the Taliban under the leadership of Mullah Nazir as well
as the Haqqanis and Hafiz Gul Bahadar in North Waziristan.
Al Qaeda fighters are known to have harbored in the Ladha region in
South Waziristan. The US has conducted seven airstrikes in Ladha since
2008, two of which have killed dangerous al Qaeda and Taliban
commanders.
Khalid Habib, the former commander of the Lashkar al Zil, or the
Shadow Army, al Qaeda's paramilitary forces in Pakistan's northwest
and Afghanistan, was among six Taliban and al Qaeda operatives killed
in an airstrike on a safe house in the village of Sam in the Ladha
region of South Waziristan on Oct. 16, 2008.
Also, Baitullah Mehsud, the former leader of the Movement of the
Taliban, was killed in the Aug. 5 airstrike in Ladha.
Today's airstrike is the second in three days, and the first in South
Waziristan since Sept. 30. Two Arab al Qaeda operatives from Saudi
Arabia were among three terrorists reported killed in the Dec. 8
strike in North Waziristan.
So far this year, the US has carried out 48 airstrikes inside
Pakistan. In all of 2008, 36 strikes were carried out. Since the US
ramped up cross-border attacks in 2008, 14 al Qaeda and Taliban
leaders have been killed [see LWJ report, "US airstrikes alone cannot
defeat al Qaeda"].
US airstrikes inside Pakistan have tapered off since September, which
saw six attacks. There have been only two airstrikes in October, two
in November, and two so far this December. No senior al Qaeda or
Taliban commanders have been reported killed in those attacks.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/12/us_strike_kills_four.php
bademiyansubhanallah
A U.S. Marine instructor, center, with Afghan police trainees in
Helmand province. (Kevin Frayer/associated Press)
By David Ignatius
Thursday, December 10, 2009
For the past week, I have been mulling over two intriguing things
President Obama said the day he announced his Afghanistan policy --
one about the political strategy that underlies his presidency, and
the other about the delicate question of negotiating with the
Taliban.
The setting was a luncheon for columnists in the White House library.
It was Dec. 1, and the president was about to leave for West Point to
give his Afghanistan speech. He was dry and analytical at lunch, just
as he was that night in his address to the Corps of Cadets. I came
away from both presentations thinking that Obama wasn't bringing his
rhetorical "A-game" to the challenge of uniting the country for war.
But there were the two juicy nuggets that stuck in my mind, which hint
of a broader and more creative approach to governing and diplomacy.
They suggest the strategic thinking in the back of our professorial
president's mind when he's reading from that teleprompter. (And yes,
up close in the White House library, it did seem as if he were
scanning an invisible teleprompter as he spoke those perfect sentences
and paragraphs, looking left and right.)
The first insight involved his growing unpopularity in the polls,
which he said was "painfully clear." He understands that he was
elected to lift the country, to "rebuild America," as he put it, and
make it work better, politically and economically. He's becoming a war
president, like his predecessor, but he still wants to foster
America's defining qualities of ambition, idealism and hope.
Here's the passage that suggested his broader vision: "Part of the
goal of my presidency is to take the threat of terrorism seriously but
expand our notions of security so that it includes improving our
science and technology, making sure our schools work, getting serious
about clean energy, fixing our health-care system, stabilizing our
deficit and our debt."
This may sound like boilerplate, but it's actually a pretty good
manifesto for governing.
Obama's problem is that making policy isn't like making speeches.
Leadership isn't abstract and fuzzy anymore but real and reactive: The
president must deal with the crises before him -- an economy near
collapse when he took office and a grinding war in Afghanistan. Making
responsible policy decisions isn't easy, and in the case of bailing
out bankers or sending more troops to Afghanistan, it will leave
nearly everyone unhappy. But Obama seems newly comfortable making
enemies if he thinks he's doing the right thing.
"If I were basing my decisions on polls," he said, "then the banking
system might have collapsed, and we probably wouldn't have GM or
Chrysler, and it's not clear that the economy would be growing right
now." Some presidents have an almost compulsive need to be popular
(think Bill Clinton). This one is less needy, which is an advantage
for him and the country.
The second insight involved what may sound like a technical issue, but
it goes to how the Afghanistan war will end. I asked Obama whether he
would back reconciliation with the Taliban. He responded: "We are
supportive of the Afghan government's efforts to reintegrate those
elements of the Taliban that . . . have abandoned violence and are
willing to engage in the political process."
Obama sent more signals that night at West Point: He dropped the
language from his March 27 speech on Afghanistan insisting the
Taliban's core "must be defeated" and promised only to "reverse the
Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the
government." He also pledged to "support efforts by the Afghan
government to open the door to those Taliban" who are ready to make
peace.
The Taliban gave an interesting response a few days later on its Web
site, Alemarah.info. It said the group "has no agenda of meddling in
the internal affairs of other countries and is ready to give legal
guarantee if the foreign forces withdraw from Afghanistan." Now, what
did that mean? Was it a hint the Taliban might break with al-Qaeda? I
don't know, but I hope the White House is asking Saudi Arabia and
Pakistan to find out.
Obama has a cool and detached style that makes people forget,
sometimes, that he is an innovator and a change agent. He would be
wise to show the country less of the mental teleprompter and more of
the fire inside.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/09/AR2009120903311.html
bademiyansubhanallah
How to Mend Fences With Pakistan
By ASIF ALI ZARDARI
Published: December 9, 2009
Islamabad, Pakistan
NOW that President Obama has recommitted the United States to stand
with Pakistan and Afghanistan in our common fight against terrorism,
extremism and fanaticism, it would be useful for Americans and
Pakistanis to consider what has brought us to this point — and what
the conflict’s true endgame must be.
Despite the noise created by an often hyperactive press in Pakistan
(an essential and preferable alternative to the censorship that
prevailed during my country’s military dictatorships), and the doubts
expressed in America, Pakistan’s democratically elected government is
unambiguously on the right path toward establishing a moderate and
modern nation.
Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani and I are working closely with
our national assembly and our military and intelligence agencies to
defeat the Taliban insurgency and the Qaeda-backed campaign of
terrorism. Simultaneously, we are pursuing policies that will re-
establish Pakistan as a vibrant economic market and finally address
the long-neglected weaknesses in our education, health, agriculture
and energy sectors. This isn’t just rhetoric — it is an active policy
with new budget priorities and a reoriented national mindset.
Over the last weeks I have moved forcefully to re-establish the
traditional powers of the presidency as defined in the parliamentary
model on which our Constitution is based. Our Constitution was
distorted and perverted by military dictators who usurped the legal
powers of Parliament. In accordance with the manifesto of the Pakistan
Peoples Party, I am working toward strengthening the separation of
powers of the presidency from those of the prime minister. Recently, I
voluntarily handed back the chairmanship of the National Command
Authority that exercises control over Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.
Contrary to some of the commentary on the subject, this is not a sign
of weakness, but rather a demonstration of the vitality of Pakistani
democracy.
As President Obama has noted, Pakistan’s military has courageously
executed important actions in the Swat Valley and South Waziristan
against terrorists who threaten all of us. Pakistan has paid an
enormous price in blood and treasure. But this is a price we are
willing to pay. Every day across our land, cowards distort our
religion of peace, Islam, by slaughtering innocent people. Three
thousand civilians, including my wife, Benazir Bhutto, and 2,000
soldiers and police officers have been killed in the last eight years.
Just last week 40 people died in a mosque while at Friday prayers,
including 10 children. This is our war as well as America’s.
Yet in both countries there is deep suspicion toward the other. Many
Americans still wonder, despite our sacrifices, if Pakistan is doing
all it can to fight terrorism. Some resent what they believe is an
absence of gratitude in Pakistan for American aid. But consider the
history as seen by Pakistanis.
Twice in recent history America abandoned its democratic values to
support dictators and manipulate and exploit us. In the 1980s, the
United States supported Gen. Muhammad Zia ul-Haq’s iron rule against
the Pakistani people while using Pakistan as a surrogate in the war
against the Soviets in Afghanistan. That decade turned our peaceful
nation into a “Kalashnikov and heroin” society — a nation defined by
guns and drugs. In its fight against the Soviets, the United States,
as a matter of policy, supported the most radical elements within the
mujahedeen, who would later become the Taliban and Al Qaeda. When the
Soviets were defeated and left in 1989, the United States abandoned
Pakistan and created a vacuum in Afghanistan, resulting in the current
horror.
And then after 9/11, the United States closed its eyes to the abuses
of the dictatorship of President Pervez Musharraf, providing support
to the regime while doing little to help with social needs or
encourage the restoration of democracy. For Pakistanis, it is a bitter
memory.
Public mistrust of the United States also stems from regional issues,
specifically policies concerning India. I know it is the conventional
wisdom in Washington that my nation is obsessed with India. But even
to those of us who are striving toward accommodation and peace, the
long history and the unresolved situation in Kashmir give Pakistanis
reason to be concerned about our neighbor to the east. Just as the
Israeli-Palestinian dispute cannot be resolved without accommodating
the Palestinian people, there cannot be permanent regional peace in
South Asia without addressing Kashmir.
The recent upset in Pakistan over the Kerry-Lugar legislation, which
President Obama signed into law and which requires the secretary of
state to report to Congress on military and civil progress in
Pakistan, shows how sensitive many here are to what they see as unfair
treatment by the United States. It would be helpful if the United
States, at some point, would scrutinize India in a similar fashion and
acknowledge that it has from time to time played a destabilizing role
in the region.
The perceived rhetorical one-sidedness of American policy often fuels
the conspiracy theories that abound here — theories that blame the
West for all of our ills. Pakistan’s elected democratic leadership is
itself a victim of some of these conspiracy theories, but our American
partners must understand their origins and work with us to turn public
opinion around.
Although we certainly appreciate America’s $7.5 billion pledge over
the next five years for nonmilitary projects in Pakistan, this long-
term commitment must be complemented by short-term policies that
demonstrate American neutrality and willingness to help India and
Pakistan overcome their mutual distrust. It could start by stepping up
its efforts to mediate the Kashmir dispute.
In recent days, I have thought often of something my wife, Benazir,
wrote in the days before her death: “It is so much easier to blame
others for our problems than to accept responsibility ourselves.”
Benazir added that conspiracy theories and “toxic rhetoric” were “an
opiate that keeps Muslims angry against external enemies and allows
them to pay little attention to the internal causes of intellectual
and economic decline.”
The free world stands with President Obama in the effort to defeat the
extremism that threatens us all. Pakistanis are on the frontlines in
this battle.
But we need help. We need the support of our allies in war but also to
help build a new Pakistan that promises a meaningful future to our
children. We are not looking for — and indeed reject — dependency. We
don’t need or want (nor would we accept) foreign troops to defeat the
insurgency, and we seek trade more than aid from you in the future. It
is an economically viable and socially robust democratic Pakistan that
will be the most effective long-term weapon against terrorism,
extremism and fanaticism. This is the necessary endgame. And this is
how history will judge victory.
Asif Ali Zardari is the president of Pakistan.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/opinion/10zardari.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
chhotemianinshallah
Fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan
As President Obama announced plans to send 30,000 more troops into
Afghanistan to tackle the Taliban, Mark Urban spent time with some of
the troops on the front line in Helmand province.
There are currently about 100,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan
"I heard Kilo company lit up nine guys today," said Craig, a young US
marine, his face illuminated by the flickering flames that separated
us.
Craig, square-jawed and of Irish American stock from Boston, looked
like a young Kennedy stranded in Afghanistan. Night had fallen over
the shattered compound in Now Zad where we were bedding down.
The company that Craig and I were attached to, Lima, had spent its day
blasting its way through an area of abandoned farms believed to be
host to dozens of Taliban.
But the enemy, pausing only to shoot at the vehicle that brought us
in, had not given Craig and the other members of Lima Company the
fight - and the kills - they had hoped for.
"You seem disappointed?" I asked another member of the squad, Josh, a
gravel-voiced lance corporal from Missouri.
For the marines in Lima or Kilo companies... this operation was
their chance to challenge the Taliban to a stand-up fight and kill
them
"Sure we are," he replied without hesitation, his blue eyes peering
out of a tired face blackened with camouflage cream.
These soldiers were taking part in an operation called Angry Cobra, a
big set-piece offensive involving more than 1,000 marines, Afghan,
British and Danish troops. Its aim was to break the Taliban hold on
Now Zad, a district centre in northern Helmand province.
'Dry run'
For four days, we watched close up as huge explosions echoed around
the natural amphitheatre of high peaks surrounding the Afghan town.
With each great blast, the marines had whooped or shouted "get some!"
Drones had wheeled noisily but unseen above us, trying to pinpoint the
enemy, and the thump of helicopter rotors had added to the general
cacophony.
Some of the American high-ups saw the operation as a dry run for other
set-piece assaults on Taliban strongholds.
We can certainly expect more of those now that President Obama is
increasing US forces and urging them to subdue Afghanistan's
insurgency in short order.
But for the marines in Lima or Kilo companies it was all a bit more
straightforward - this operation was their chance to challenge the
Taliban to a stand-up fight and kill them.
'Dark sub-text'
Two events during the few weeks leading up to Operation Angry Cobra
had hardened the marines' resolve.
In one, back in October, an American sniper team operating in the town
had come to grief on two IEDs (improvised explosive devices) killing
one and wounding nine others.
Washington's new plan for the war promises plenty of action
The other incident was murkier both in its confused detail and dark
sub-text.
Marines had mortared two men believed to be setting an IED in an area
not far away. A villager later presented two dead children at their
base, claiming they had been killed by American fire.
But the children, according to those who had seen them or photographs
of them, had been shot. The marines said they had information that a
local Taliban commander had ordered it, just so that the Americans
would be blamed.
When I asked one young officer about that business, the night before
we went out on the operation, he had fixed me in his gaze and said: "I
will be happy to go out and kill those people."
Elusive foe
But the Taliban were hardly going to make that easy.
The Taliban have said they will step up their fight against the US and
its allies
More than 20 years ago, when talking to Soviet soldiers in Afghanistan
while I covered their war for a newspaper, they often used the word
"dushman" which is Persian for enemy.
Some, however, who had taken part in sweeps to try to catch their
elusive foe, corrupted "dushman" to "duchi", meaning spirits or
ghosts.
And so it proved in Now Zad. The Americans said they had killed 12
guerrillas, taken a similar number of detainees and found caches
containing dozens of IEDs. But most of the enemy had lain low.
The American plan was well thought-out. They had inserted Kilo Company
by helicopter to block off one possible line of Taliban retreat, and a
British force off to the east had been there to impede another.
They had moved swiftly through the belt of booby traps surrounding
their base by firing off minefield-breaching rockets, blasting lanes
through the IEDs.
But their enemy, for the most part, had proven elusive.
The new emphasis in Now Zad is shifting to bringing in the governor,
clearing IEDs and re-building.
By their earlier actions, the Taliban had goaded the marines. Sitting
that evening with the tired squad in an abandoned Afghan farm, I
realised that the Americans had been denied a chance to quench that
anger.
But there will be other opportunities soon enough.
The Taliban who evaded Operation Angry Cobra may show themselves again
soon, and Washington's new plan for the war promises plenty of
action.
How to listen to: From Our Own Correspondent
Radio 4: Saturdays, 1130. Second weekly edition on Thursdays, 1100
(some weeks only)
World Service: See programme schedules
Download the podcast
Listen on iPlayer
Story by story at the programme website
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8408202.stm
chhotemianinshallah
Why Afghanistan's politics are stranger than fiction
Afghan President Hamid Karzai has begun his second term with a pledge
to end the fighting there but as Hugh Sykes reports the Pakistan
connection makes this a deeply complex problem.
The Taliban came to prominence in Afghanistan in the autumn of 1994
"Fantastic, thrilling, unbelievable," says the blurb on the back cover
of the airport thriller Unholy Madness.
The plot is a bit far-fetched. There is this force of Islamic
fundamentalist fighters called the Taliban.
They have two branches - one in Pakistan, the other in Afghanistan.
The Pakistan Army is trying to defeat the local Taliban, who have been
killing hundreds of people in Pakistani cities with suicide bombers
and assaults by armed insurgents.
The Americans and the British have weighed in to help the fight
against the Pakistan Taliban.
Meanwhile across the border to the west, the Afghan Taliban are
killing American and British troops and they are supplied with
weapons, vehicles and mobile phones from across the border in
Pakistan, where the Afghan Taliban leadership is based.
So the Americans and the British are supporting a country, Pakistan,
which has elements who are supporting the movement that is killing
British and American troops.
You could not make it up.
And all I actually made up was the title, Unholy Madness.
The Afghan Taliban leadership are in Pakistan. Pakistan has failed to
act against them. And they do kill British and American troops.
And the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the US is standing
shoulder-to-shoulder with Pakistan.
From the point of view of an American or British soldier, though, that
is pretty much the same as saying that the US is standing shoulder-to-
shoulder with the country that is supporting the enemy that is killing
them.
War direction
This strange, convoluted scenario comes sharply into focus if you look
at a map.
The main fighting areas in Afghanistan are in the south - near and
around the city of Kandahar.
Just across the mountains, along a proper road, there is the Pakistani
city of Quetta, where the Afghan Taliban ruling council, the Shura,
are thought to spend much of their time - directing and supplying
their war effort against the Americans and the British from a safe
distance.
And Quetta is not in the ambiguous "tribal areas" - it is proper
Pakistan; it is the capital of the fully-fledged Pakistani province of
Baluchistan.
It would be entirely rational for Pakistan to support the Afghan
Taliban - they have to hedge their bets.
The Taliban might rule Afghanistan again one day, and they need to
have a good relationship with them, as they did before, when the
Taliban were in power in Kabul.
Pakistan was one of the few countries to recognise the Taliban
government - there was a Taliban embassy in Islamabad.
But it does mean American and British troops are being killed because
Pakistan, in effect, has failed to shut down the Afghan Taliban supply
lines from Pakistan into Afghanistan.
And looking at the map highlights another point - Afghanistan is
landlocked.
The Americans and the British and the rest of ISAF - the International
Stabilisation Assistance Force - get most of their supplies by road.
For years, lorries lumbering across the Khyber Pass with food, bottled
water and groceries for the Western forces were attacked by the
Taliban.
Now many more of those lorries are getting through untouched because
security firms hired by the Americans and the British are paying the
Taliban huge sums in protection money to let the lorries through.
And what do the Taliban do with the cash? They probably do not take
holidays at beach hotels in Dubai.
So again, American and British soldiers are being killed with
ammunition paid for, indirectly, with American and British money.
You could not make it up.
Miserable existence
Meanwhile, in Kabul, life hardly improves. Poverty in parts of the
Afghan capital is almost medieval.
Begging is commonplace in poverty-stricken Kabul
"Old alms seekers with their seamy palms out-held and maimed beggars
sad-eyed in rags and children asleep in the shadows with flies walking
their dreamless eyes.
"Naked dogs that seem composed of bone entirely and small orphans
abroad like irate dwarfs."
That is an extract from the novel Blood Meridian, by Cormac McCarthy -
king of bleak.
I was reading that passage in Afghanistan last week after an afternoon
walking around the capital and I thought: "That's Kabul."
But he was describing Mexico City 150 years ago.
To complete the Kabul picture you simply need to add:
Children in rags tug at your coat and you fish out a battered Afghan
note worth barely 50p.
Then there are 10 small children grabbing at your hand and you cannot
get away because the children are blocking the pavement.
And the road is a stream of rainwater, sewage and mud.
A woman with a baby under her burka sees you giving money to the
children and begs for some herself.
And when you say you have no more one small boy persists and walks
with you for 20 minutes until you relent and your reward is a genuine
smile of gratitude.
The daylight thickens into night and there are no street lights.
By the glow of a storm lantern men sift through second-hand clothes on
a cart and try to pick out a good winter coat.
Meanwhile, a young man desperate for work weeps as he talks to me and
through accusing tears says: "You've been here eight years now, and
what have you done?
"Why is my country so miserable?"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8371037.stm
chhotemianinshallah
Charges to drop against Iraq deaths Blackwater guard
Blackwater guards are accused of firing on civilians in the 2007
incident
US prosecutors have asked for charges against one of five Blackwater
security guards accused of killing up to 17 unarmed Iraqi civilians to
be dropped.
No reason was given for the move to dismiss charges against Nicholas
Slatten, of Tennessee.
But prosecutors left open the option of reinstating proceedings at a
later date.
Four other men are due to face trial in February over the 16 September
2007 incident in the Iraqi capital.
A sixth pleaded guilty and agreed to co-operate with prosecutors.
The killings - which strained Iraq-US relations - took place when
Blackwater guards opened fire in Baghdad's Nisoor Square while
escorting an American diplomatic convoy.
The firm says its guards were acting in self-defence but witnesses and
relatives of those killed maintain that the shooting was unprovoked.
The US says 14 people were killed but an Iraqi investigation put the
number at 17. Children were among those killed, and several people
were wounded.
Iraq later withdrew Blackwater's licence to operate within its borders
and the US government stopped using the firm to guard its diplomats in
Iraq.
Blackwater has changed its name to Xe Services.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8371746.stm
Sid Harth
Submitted by Robert Oak on Thu, 12/10/2009 - 02:25. links
On The Economic Populist you might have noticed the middle column. We
try to list other sites and blogs who have exceptional insight and
writing on what is happening in the U.S. economy.
Sometimes though, one cannot say it better but miss those who did.
Must Read #1
A new research piece, by Asha G. Bangalore, Northern TrustGlobal
Economic Research, states that just to maintain the current
unemployment rate, the United States must create between 86,600 and
140,000 jobs per month. It's due to the average and then a slightly
below average labor force growth rate of the last 20 years. So next
time you see someone cheering that the U.S. only lost 11,000 jobs this
month, consider these numbers. Also next time you see someone saying
the United States should ignore immigration factors in the current
labor market situation....think of these numbers.
Must Read #2
Naked Capitalism overviews some recent articles calling for action
against China. It's one stop shopping for the implications of letting
the trade deficit with China continue. Yves sums up the dire nature of
our trade deficit situation:
The US will not be able to deleverage (absent explicit default) unless
we move to a trade surplus. As long as we run a current account
deficit, we need to run a capital account surplus. That means (if the
deficit and therefore corresponding surplus are more than trivial)
rising levels of debt, and high odds of speculative asset bubbles.Must
Read #3
The Atlanta Fed blog has a post, Jobs and the potential commercial
real estate problem: Still keeping us up at night detailing the
correlation between small business access to credit and the growing
commercial real estate crisis. (Talk about a dog chasing it's tail in
consequences!)
One area where bank loan losses are potentially high and uncertain is
commercial real estate (CRE). As highlighted in a macroblog post from
October, if the CRE problem falls disproportionately on financial
institutions that also finance small business activity, we will be all
the more worried that "the post-recession employment boost [small]
firms typically provide may be less robust than in previous
recoveries."Small businesses that rely on bank loans for credit are
much more likely to be affected by a bank's CRE exposure than in the
past. In 1993, banks with CRE loan books more than three times their
Tier 1 capital accounted for just 11 percent of total small business
C&I loans. But this share increased to 42 percent in 2008 and stood at
38 percent in June 2009 (of a total of $281 billion of C&I loans to
small businesses).Must Read #4
Paul Volcker gave two speeches this week, summarized in the Time of
London, Wake up gentlemen. Volcker is slamming many of the issues most
of America is, the refusal to reinstate glass-steagall, executive pay
and absurd "financial innovation" that is not based on sound models.
Must Read #5
Propublica.org article, Thousands of Stimulus Reports Missing,
Resulting in Potential Undercount of Jobs Created details once more
how jobs are not being tallied correctly. While we believe the
Stimulus did not create jobs that $787 Billion should, the number's
are seriously skewed the opposite direction. Many recipients did not
file reports! Another post, Stimulus contracts going to companies
under criminal investigation, show the never ending manipulation of
large corporations to claim they are a small, minority owned business
to gain access to contracts.
The Department of Defense awarded nearly $30 million in stimulus
contracts to six companies while they were under federal criminal
investigation on suspicion of defrauding the government.Propublica is
great site overall, with a lot of details in tracking the bailouts and
stimulus.
Must Read #6
The Wall Street Journal has detailed the new American Dream, Default,
then Rent.
Finally some cracks in the ceiling and acknowlgement owning the
American home has turned out to be a very expensive proposition. (h/t
Calculated Risk).
Robert Oak's blogEmail this Blog entry0 points.Forget Glass-
Steagall....
Submitted by James Woolley on Thu, 12/10/2009 - 14:25.
...I once thought that would be a quick help to fixing this godawful
mess, but things have gone too far over the cliff.
The system is too rotten, situations far too gamed.
John Plender, in a past Financial Times column, mentioned that the
drivel he learned in college business and econ courses regarding
balance sheet efficiency and private equity was just so much
"claptrap."
Yet, we've seen over the past thirty years that corporations and
foundations endowed specific econ and business chairs at a number of
universities, and those specific academics taught said "claptrap." And
pushed for securitization and credit derivatives adoption, and SIV,
SPV, SPE, SPC, SPRe adoption.
I see a definite pattern here: Martin Feldstein, of Harvard (in regard
to that other post on AIG) was on the BoD of AIG Financial Products
when they did the largest insurance swindle in human history. And he
was on the BoD of HCA when the settled in the largest fraud settlement
at that time in American history (re: Medicare and Medicaid billing
fraud). And he was on the BoD of Eli Lilly, when their performance got
them the largest criminal fine in US history.
Just one small tick on an ongoing pattern of academics gone wild!
Rated 5 by one user. see individual ratings
reply.it's much more than Glass-Stegall
Submitted by Robert Oak on Thu, 12/10/2009 - 14:56.
but reinstating it would put a wall between investment banking and
consumer/commercial banking. This is a very much needed reform.
Removing that firewall is how the system became so interlocked like a
pack of dominoes falling down.
But that's just one rallying cry on reforms, one point out of many
things that are desired by those who have a good "big picture" view on
what's going on.
So, when you see "reinstate Glass-Stegall" don't think it's just that
one piece of legislation, it's a huge set of reforms behind it in
addition.
Not yet rated.
reply.Agreed James, it's wasted effort.
Submitted by commongood on Thu, 12/10/2009 - 16:06.
The renowned Hazel Henderson has long maintained that:
The problem is of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it
has always been nothing more than politics in disguise.
That is why I have long maintained that we are in a severe political
crisis, not just an economic one. I wholeheartedly agree with you that
the severity and depth of damage to the society at large is far beyond
"fixing" at this point. In effect, I think we are fighting the "forces
of Mordor", to borrow a phrase from Tolkein.
I am truly a pacificist at heart, but I can't see any way of
disrupting the status quo short of violent revolution. And I don't
anticipate that happening anytime soon, given the general population's
ignorance of what is happening to them.
I can think of only 3 "industries" that America is a leader.
1. Prison systems
2. Weapons of war
3. Financial innovation
The Financial industry is driving the lowest 95% of the population
into the underclass of America. Which, in turn, either forces them to
support the War agenda, or populate the prison systems. We are a
country of "Keynsian Militarism", IMO. It's the only real stimulus we
have going for us.
But all of it begs the question, what about resource depletion and
peak oil? To have a better appreciation of our misguided policies, I
would recommend John Michael Greer's latest essay. Reality will bite
hard!
Rated 5 by one user. see individual ratings
reply.Thanks, commongood, and back at you....
Submitted by James Woolley on Thu, 12/10/2009 - 18:03.
Thanks for JMG's latest essay; quite good.
Very much reminds me of the writing of economic anthropologist Joseph
A. Tainter, who has done some truly brilliant research along the
fundamental lines of the how and why societies collapse (his book: The
Collapse of Complex Societies is brilliant!).
To get a quick understanding of his writing, just read this very brief
paper of his which beautifully sums up his research on that matter.
Several sentences to ponder from his wiki entry:
We often assume that the collapse of the Roman Empire was a
catastrophe for everyone involved. Tainter points out that it can be
seen as a very rational preference of individuals at the time, many of
whom were actually better off (all but the elite, presumably).Such
reasoning might lead one to believe that any democratic-loving people
south of the border (Honduras, Bolivia, Venezuela and Columbia,
perhaps?) might not be too displeased with the dissolution of the USA
as an economic pseudo-superpower. Likewise some other countries in the
Middle East and Asia.
One very crucially important historical point Prof. Tainter has made
several times, is that in human history there has NEVER been a case of
any society ever de-economizing.
Gives one pause for thought.....
Rated 5 by 2 users. see individual ratings
reply.YW, James.
Submitted by commongood on Thu, 12/10/2009 - 18:15.
Yeah, entropy manifests itself in so many ways. I've become somewhat
familiar with Tainter in the past year or so. Mainly because I find
Prechter's Elliott Wave stuff absolutely fascinating, and compelling.
But I have to admit, I'm not in their league intellectually, but I
aspire to be. BTW, I find your arguments compelling as well, and far
from conspiracy theory. We live in interesting times, indeed!
Rated 5 by one user. see individual ratings
http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/must-read-posts-sometimes-you-just-cant-say-it-better-121009
bademiyansubhanallah
PTI
Saturday, December 12, 2009 21:04 IST
Copenhagen: Some 300 youths shrouded in black, threw bricks and
smashed windows, as at least 30,000 people demonstrated in central
Copenhagen today to turn up the heat on world leaders debating global
warming.
The rioters, whose faces were also covered, went on the rampage in the
heart of the city, prompting swift arrests as some 50 policemen in
riot gear intervened.
Demonstrators were forced to the ground and then bundled into vans, a
reporter witnessed.
The rest of the march -- the centrepiece of protests planned in 130
cities across the world -- remained peaceful, although tension was
building as protestors condemned the violence, the reporter said.
The heart of the Danish capital was taken over by environmentalists
and anti-capitalist demonstrators on a six-kilometre march that would
take them to the venue of the ongoing UN conference.
"We put their number at around 30,000 but this is just an estimate," a
police official on duty said. The Danish TV2 News channel put the
crowd strength between 30,000 and 100,000.
Organisers of the rally had repeatedly asked the crowd to remain calm
and friendly before the march began, dominated by calls for social
justice and against capitalism.
"Copenhagen is in the eye of the storm. Each year 300,000 people are
dying because of climate change. This is not about adaptation, it is
about survival," Kumi Naidoo, executive director of Greenpeace
International, said in a speech.
http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_violence-breaks-out-at-copenhagen-climate-protests_1323026
chhotemianinshallah
Reports suggest German airstrike targeted Taliban, not tankers
Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift:
More questions surround the German-ordered airstrike in September
The pressure is continuing to build on German Defence Minister zu
Guttenberg after media reports suggest a lethal airstrike ordered by
German forces in September targeted Taliban fighters, not stolen
tankers.
A day after making a surprise visit to the Kunduz region of
Afghanistan, German Defence Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg
returned home to Germany in the face of more pressure to reveal
exactly what he knows about a fatal airstrike in Kunduz that left
around 140 people dead, including dozens of civilians, on September 4.
According to several media reports released on the weekend in Germany,
the target of the airstrike was actually a group of Taliban leaders,
not a pair of hijacked tanker trucks as originally reported by the
German government.
So far, Guttenberg has defended the actions of Colonel Georg Klein,
the German officer who issued the orders for the airstrike, which was
carried out by United States Air Force jets.
Quoting a secret report from the NATO-led International Security
Assistance Force (ISAF), the Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper reports
that Klein "wanted to attack the people, not the vehicles."
Bildunterschrift: Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, left, visited Kunduz on
Friday
Questions leveled at Guttenberg
Initially, Guttenberg deemed the attacks "militarily appropriate," but
has since called them "inappropriate."
Guttenberg's reversal on the airstrike has led many German politicians
to ask why he changed his mind. The new allegations that the Taliban
leaders were directly targeted in the attack have only increased the
volume of demands for full disclosure from Guttenberg.
"(The fact that humans were targeted) is the essence of the report,
which NATO had and which Guttenberg read," said Juergen Trittin, head
of the Green party parliamentary fraction, on ARD television.
Tritten said this amounted to deliberately misleading the public.
"(Guttenberg) deliberately told an untruth. Simply put, he lied."
Parliamentary investigation planned
Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift:
Opposition leaders are demanding to know the whole story surrounding
the airstrikeMembers of Germany's opposition parties have called for a
parliamentary committee hearing to further determine the events
preceding the airstrike.
Sigmar Gabriel, head of the Social Democratic Party, said the existing
explanations offered by the government no longer cut it.
"Every day, new and more dramatic information comes to light through
the media," he said.
If the most recent allegations turn out to be true, an unprovoked
attack on humans could violate Germany's mandate as a member of the
NATO-led International Security Assistance Force.
In the aftermath of the airstrike, Former Defense Minister Franz Josef
Jung, military chief of staff Wolfgang Schneiderhan, and Peter
Wichert, a top defense ministry official, have all resigned. Regarding
Schneiderhan and Wichert, Guttenburg said the two men had withheld
documents revealing information about the civilian death toll in the
airstrike, which was the reason for their resignations.
However, further media reports suggest that documents may not have
been withheld from Guttenberg after all. Guttenberg denies this
allegation.
"Despite all the interesting theories, the fact is that relevant
documents were withheld from me," Guttenberg told the newspaper Bild
am Sonntag. "For that reason, both men accepted the responsibility."
mz/DPA/AFP
Editor: Mark Rossman
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5009573,00.html
chhotemianinshallah
The mindless pursuit of national interest, as we know, is a
propensity of powerful rather than weak states. India, for example,
justifies its military alliance with Israel on these grounds,
notwithstanding the fuss India makes about the cruelties inflicted by
Israel on the Palestinians
Deception is a glib and oily art. Richard Holbrooke is a past master
at it. Milosevich once accused Holbrooke of inveigling him into
surrender on the promise that he would be dealt with kindly. Holbrooke
denied any deal had been made and Milosevich died in prison.
Now it is the Pak-Afghan region that is to serve as the canvas for
Holbrooke’s next effort. “For the first time in history,” says
Holbrooke, “Pakistan, India and the US have the same enemy — the
Taliban.” That was news to many because while India and Pakistan do
have common enmity, they have never had a common enemy unless that
enemy is common sense.
The relationship between the Pakistani establishment and the Taliban,
vexed and unstable as it is, is not inimical although Holbrooke and
company have served notice that they dearly wish to make it so. While
this would suit the US and particularly India, the new player on the
Afghan scene (pending the return of the Taliban), Pakistan, should be
wary of such entrapment. No doubt the ideology of the Taliban is
loathsome to most Pakistanis, but actually it is only those of the
Taliban who fight Pakistan and wish to impose their perverse version
of Islam on Pakistan by force and terror that we consider enemies. The
Taliban who are fighting against foreign occupation in Afghanistan are
decidedly not our enemies. Of course, the Taliban’s use of Pakistani
territory as a platform to wage war against a neighbouring state is
unfortunate and unacceptable although at another time and a different
era Pakistan was lauded for precisely the same reasons that it is now
being castigated.
The mindless pursuit of national interest, as we know, is a propensity
of powerful rather than weak states. India, for example, justifies its
military alliance with Israel on these grounds, notwithstanding the
fuss India makes about the cruelties inflicted by Israel on the
Palestinians. And no one holds India to account, not even the Arabs.
No less selfish in safeguarding its interests in practice, though not
in principle, is the US. If truth be told, the US is prepared to burn
your house down to cook a couple of eggs as Bush showed in Iraq, and
is now threatening to do the same to Pakistan, unless Taliban “safe
havens” are removed.
Sadly, the chances are that Holbrooke’s threats and, of course, some
arm-twisting of our military by Mullen and company will generate
enough pressure on Pakistan to oblige. A nation pauperised by its
rulers, in hock to its creditors, and at the mercy of discredited
political novices will not be able to summon up the guts or gumption
to resist. This is a pity not only because it will bring Pakistan to
clash with the Afghan Taliban but also because maintaining equable
relations with them is politically astute for Pakistan and, given half
a chance, could help bring peace to the region.
The fact is that the departure of the US from Afghanistan is as
certain as night follows day. And so too eventually the return of a
Taliban dominated regime in Afghanistan. As in the past, when faced by
the prospect of unending war and strife, the Afghans will be more than
happy to trade the harshness of Taliban rule for a measure of peace
that it promises. Talk about NATO leaving a trained army to sort out
the Taliban is laughable. It is the melding of imagination and fiction
that makes for a good novel, but not the basis of a workable
strategy.
Hence engaging the Taliban seems prudent and inevitable. And
especially as the Taliban have said that they are mindful of their
obligations to conduct themselves responsibly, which is perhaps as
close to an apology for their earlier conduct as one can expect. Their
sole demand has been, and remains, the end of US occupation; a goal
that also gels with that of Obama (though ironically not Pakistan). It
is unlikely, in the circumstances, that a future Taliban dispensation
will allow al Qaeda a free hand to attack other countries from their
eyries in the Sulaiman Range or elsewhere. The Taliban have a sly,
sharp instinct for self-preservation. To once again risk hard won
power makes no sense. Committing suicide twice is not in their mien.
Then who better than Pakistan to bring them to the conference table in
view of our past collaboration and the deep knowledge that we possess
of their working? Of course, the entire exercise is predicated on
American acceptance of the Taliban returning to power in Afghanistan
and Pakistan maintaining an independent posture and not acting as a
stalking horse for the Americans. Alas, both provisos are
conspicuously missing. The US is not as yet ready to admit defeat or,
even, to abandon its unrealistic aims for Afghanistan. This will not
happen unless the surge is tried and fails. And Pakistan, rather than
freeing itself from the deadly American embrace, finds itself driven
deeper into the US’s arms as a result of its weak economy and the
dichotomy in decision making that has always plagued this country.
One of the most dispiriting aspects of the Afghan conflict has been
the diplomatic performance of Pakistan. Rather than be at the
forefront of plans and initiatives to resolve the crisis, because
without our participation and approval nothing of any consequence can
happen or endure, we are being dragged along rather like a troublesome
child who cannot be left alone at home while elders discuss his
future. Obama’s perfunctory call to Zardari fooled no one; nor did the
fact that he mentioned Pakistan so often in his speech. Pakistan,
let’s face it, is being taken for granted. It does not count for much.
The many future dead that the surge will bring will only deepen and
embitter hostility. The opportunity that existed when Obama got up to
address his troops at West Point has been squandered. A fruit that
ripens if not plucked in time begins to rot and then turns rancid.
From Afghanistan and its environs exudes, sadly, the stench of
international failure.
The writer is a former ambassador
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009%5C12%5C13%5Cstory_13-12-2009_pg3_3
chhotemianinshallah
(AFP) – 1 day ago
NEW YORK — US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that the United
States strongly supports Pakistan at a "critical juncture," but
acknowledged that a lack of trust is impeding cooperation.
In a speech at the New York inaugural benefit of the newly created
American Pakistan Foundation, Clinton said Pakistan needs to build up
democracy, while facing down the Taliban and other militant groups.
"To achieve the long term progress that Pakistan seeks and deserves,
we must go further in two areas: helping Pakistan to strengthen its
democratic institutions and improve security by defeating the
extremist groups who are waging a campaign of violence against
Pakistan and threaten stability in South Asia and beyond," Clinton
said.
The US foreign policy chief noted that Pakistan's military had taken
on Taliban groups inside the country, but not militants using Pakistan
as a rear base to attack US-led NATO troops in Afghanistan.
"There are other terrorist groups who have set up camp in Pakistan,
where they are plotting global attacks and waging war against the
troops from 42 nations... in Afghanistan," she said.
"Pakistan has a critical role and an abiding interest in helping this
international effort," she said.
"We will continue to encourage the Pakistani government to take
affirmative steps toward the goal of disrupting, dismantling and
defeating Al-Qaeda and the other terrorist groups responsible for so
much suffering."
US pressure on Pakistan's government, as well as secretive US military
operations there -- particularly the use of missile-firing drones to
assassinate alleged Al-Qaeda leaders -- are controversial among
Pakistanis.
Clinton acknowledged that many Pakistanis mistrust US intentions in
the volatile country, which borders rival India and Afghanistan.
During a trip there in October, she encountered "the skepticism felt
by many," she said. "This trust deficit holds us back from working
together as well as we could."
But Clinton assured that Washington did not seek to undermine
Pakistan's sovereignty or to "override the government's judgments or
subvert the people's will."
She said that the country had the potential to "become a beacon of
democracy, a model of development" and that Washington aimed only to
help this goal.
"We come as a partner, not a patron," she said to applause from guests
in the ornate Cipriani restaurant in central Manhattan.
State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said Clinton saw the American
Pakistan Foundation as a group that would be able to emulate other
powerful Diaspora organizations in the United States.
The honorary co-chairs of the foundation are former secretary of state
Colin Powell and former Pakistani premier Moeen Qureshi.
Copyright © 2009 AFP. All rights reserved.
Clinton said Pakistan needs to build up democracy, while facing down
the Taliban and other militant groups
chhotemianinshallah
www.chinaview.cn 2009-12-13 20:59:04
ISLAMABAD, Dec. 13 (Xinhua) -- Pakistani Prime Minister Syed
Yousuf Raza Gilani said Sunday that the strategy of Pakistan and the
U.S. must be the same to win the war on terrorism.
Addressing a press conference at the airport of the central
Pakistani city of Multan, Gilani said that Pakistan had been consulted
by the U.S. on the new Afghan policy and added that U.S. officials
would soon visit Pakistan to share more details and for discussions.
"Pakistan must be on board for its success," he added.
The official APP news agency quoted Gilani as saying that Pakistan
had a strategic relationship with the U.S. and cooperation in
intelligence and defense was the main focus.
He said that Pakistan and the U.S. must be on the same page to win
the war on terrorism and both had the realization. He said that
terrorism was a big threat which was not only claiming precious lives
but also hurting the economy.
Special Report: Pakistani Situation
Editor: Lin Zhi
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-12/13/content_12641530.htm
chhotemianinshallah
By Reed V. Landberg and Kitty Donaldson
Dec. 14 (Bloomberg) -- Gordon Brown’s government will tomorrow
announce 150 million pounds ($244 million) in spending to tackle the
threat of explosive devices in Afghanistan, part of the U.K. prime
minister’s effort to blunt criticism that he has starved the war
effort of support and funding.
The Ministry of Defense will spread the funding over three years,
starting with a 50 million-pound program to train soldiers to detect
improvised explosive devices, a government official said, declining to
be identified in accord with policy.
Taliban insurgents have shifted toward attacking coalition forces with
the makeshift devices in Afghanistan after receiving heavy casualties
in fire fights. Brown, trailing in polls with an election due within
six months, is trying to convince voters to maintain support for the
war.
“The reason they are using this tactic is because they cannot take on
British forces face-to-face in armed combat,” Brown said while
visiting troops in southern Afghanistan yesterday. “But we are
stepping up surveillance, so we are more aware of what is happening.
We are getting better intelligence and a greater number of engineers.
All these things are being done to weaken the Taliban and show they
can’t win.”
Defense Secretary Bob Ainsworth will detail the measures in a
statement to the House of Commons tomorrow as part of a broader
program of support for Afghanistan. Brown will speak to Parliament
today at 3:30 p.m. both about his trip to Afghanistan and about the
European Union summit he attended in Brussels last week.
Combat Zone
On Dec. 9, Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling said he would
set aside an extra 2.5 billion pounds for the war in Afghanistan,
taking the cost of the conflicts there and in Iraq to 14 billion
pounds.
Brown became the first U.K. prime minister since Winston Churchill to
spend a night with troops in a combat zone on the Afghan visit Dec. 12
and 13. The premier slept in a sheet-metal and concrete building on a
British airbase in Kandahar.
Brown met with Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai yesterday in
Kandahar, the former Taliban stronghold. In a joint press conference
with Brown, Karzai said he will bring plans to improve security in his
country, fight government corruption, bolster the economy and bring
terrorists back into democratic society when he attends an
international conference in London next month.
“We have a job to do, and we must do it,” Karzai said.
Less than six months before the next election, Brown’s government is
struggling to contain the financial and political costs of the war in
Afghanistan. At least 237 British personnel have died there since
2001, almost half of them this year.
Support Declines
Support for the war in Britain slipped last month after the death toll
of U.K. troops from combat rose above 200 and the nation’s top
military commander, Jock Stirrup, said Brown hasn’t made a strong-
enough case for the fighting.
A poll by ComRes Ltd. published on Nov. 15 found 71 percent of Britons
want forces to return home within a year. Since then, the U.K. has
suffered its 100th death in Afghanistan this year.
Britain blames the increasing number of casualties in Afghanistan on
the change in tactics by the Taliban. British forces have defused
1,500 improvised explosive devices and roadside bombs in the past
three months.
As the Taliban has escalated attacks, Brown and U.S. President Barack
Obama have responded by pledging more troops and pushing Karzai to
bolster the quality of his own forces.
Troop Numbers
Britain, whose troops are based in Helmand province in Afghanistan’s
south, plans to increase its commitment by 500 in the next few days,
bringing its deployment to more than 10,000. The U.S. will have
100,000 soldiers in the country by the end of this year, almost a
third more than before. Other allies of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization have about 29,000 there.
Brown has said he may be able to begin withdrawing U.K. troops from
Afghanistan as early as 2010, as local forces take more responsibility
for security.
On Jan. 28, Brown is hosting a meeting in London where he hopes to
begin talking about a framework for withdrawing Western forces. On
Dec. 2, he said “one or two parts” of the nation may be handed back to
Afghan forces in 2010.
To contact the reporter on this story: Reed Landberg with the prime
minister land...@bloomberg.net; or Kitty Donaldson in London at
kdona...@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: December 13, 2009 19:00 EST
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=aaw0m7el5hkY
chhotemianinshallah
By STEVE R. HURST (AP) – 53 minutes ago
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama says he'll know by the end of 2010
if his Afghan strategy is working, and pledges to change direction if
the U.S. military is not on course "in terms of securing population
centers" from Taliban militants.
The president also says his Dec. 1 speech ordering 30,000 more
American soldiers and Marines into the 8-year-old war "hit me in the
gut" emotionally more than any he had given.
After doubling the U.S. force in Afghanistan in March, just two months
after taking office, Obama raised the stakes further by ordering a
nearly 50-percent troop increase in a speech at the U.S. Military
Academy at West Point, N.Y. He issued the orders even as support for
the war was crumbling among the public and opposed by many fellow
Democrats in Congress.
Many observers said Obama appeared overly analytical and emotionally
detached in ordering still more Americans into an increasingly violent
mission against the Taliban to prevent their takeover of the Afghan
government and a feared return of al-Qaida terrorists.
Not true, Obama told CBS's "60 Minutes," in an interview taped Dec. 7
for broadcast Sunday night.
"You know, that was actually, probably, the most emotional speech that
I've made, in terms of how I felt about it," the president said,
"because I was looking out over a group of cadets, some of whom were
going to be deployed in Afghanistan. And potentially some might not
come back."
Obama also answered critics who saw ambiguity in ordering the big
troop increase while then saying some of them probably would begin
coming home in July 2011. That's the date when U.S. military forces
plan to start handing security responsibility to Afghan soldiers and
police who would undergo intensive recruitment and training.
"We then start transitioning into a drawdown phase," Obama repeated,
noting that specifics were conditional. "How many U.S. troops are
coming out, how quickly, will be determined by conditions on the
ground."
And he gave himself a loophole.
"If the approach that's been recommended doesn't work, then yes, we're
going to be changing approaches," he said. Obama quickly added that
the deadline was necessary to alert the Afghan leadership that the
United States was not going to make Afghanistan an American
"protectorate."
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, agreed to
the mission of securing the population, saying success would mean
"over time they (the Taliban) become irrelevant and ineffective."
McChrystal had sought 40,000 additional troops for the war. Obama
eventually settled on 30,000 after an intensive three-month study of
the mission and how best to achieve goals. Most of the shortfall
between what McChrystal sought and what Obama approved was expected to
be made up from U.S. NATO allies and other countries that have sent
forces to the conflict.
Obama and McChrystal said the idea was to mimic — to some extent — the
Bush administration's troop increase in Iraq that deflated the Sunni
insurgency there by bringing many of its fighters into the U.S. fight
to de-fang the al-Qaida forces. The terrorist organization moved into
the country after the United States invaded and removed Saddam Hussein
from power.
Many Sunnis, the minority Muslim sect in Iraq, had joined forces with
al-Qaida after Saddam's ouster. He was a Sunni and his departure
pushed the Sunnis from their traditional hold on power.
The president also once again put Pakistan on notice that it was going
to have to do more against its own Taliban militants and al-Qaida.
The organization's leader, Osama bin Laden, and his chief lieutenants
and many fighters fled to the largely ungoverned and mountainous
regions of Pakistan after the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in 2001,
shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
"In order for us to eradicate the problem, to really go after al-
Qaida, in an effective way, we are going to need more cooperation from
Pakistan," Obama said. "There is no doubt about that."
The U.S. has been fighting to kill bin Laden and other al-Qaida
leaders and fighters by using unmanned missile-armed drone aircraft
inside Pakistan. The Pentagon has never acknowledged the drone
program.
As he was questioned about upping the ante in Afghanistan, Obama also
took a swipe at the Bush administration for invading Iraq on the
mistaken suspicion Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. The Iraq
mission vastly diminished U.S. resources available in Afghanistan.
"One of the mistakes that was made over the last eight years is for us
to have a triumphant sense about war," Obama said. "There was a
tendency to say 'We can go in. We can kick some tail. This is some
glorious exercise.' When, in fact, this is a tough business."
The first contingent of new U.S. forces, a Marine unit, is to be in
place by Christmas.
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
An Afghan man reacts as he waits for medical treatment at a free
clinic by the United States Navy medical personnel attached to the 2nd
MEB, 4th Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion at North Station near
Khan Neshin in the volatile Helmand province of southern Afghanistan,
Sunday, Dec. 13, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer)
bademiyansubhanallah
The Taliban can be admired for their conviction to their faith and
their sense of loyalty to one another, the new bishop for the Armed
Forces has claimed.
By Jonathan Wynne-Jones and Duncan Gardham
Published: 5:52PM GMT 13 Dec 2009
Taliban militants in Afghanistan Photo: AP
The Rt Rev Stephen Venner called for a more sympathetic approach to
the Islamic fundamentalists that recognises their humanity.
The Church of England’s Bishop to the Forces warned that it will be
harder to reach a peaceful solution to the war if the Afghan
insurgents are portrayed too negatively.
2,500 wounded British soldiers waiting for compensation, figures show
Taliban peace deal was 'bought' for £20,000His comments came as the
Prime Minister visited Afghanistan and warned that the Taliban was
fighting a "guerilla war" aimed at causing "maximum damage". Gordon
Brown said soldiers were discovering improvised explosive devices
every two hours.
Mr Brown stayed overnight in the Allied base in the southern city of
Kandahar, the first British Prime Minister to spend the night in a war
zone since Winston Churchill. His visit came days after the death of
Lance Corporal Adam Drane, the 100th member of the British forces to
die in Afghanistan this year. His death brought the total number of
British service personnel who have died since the start of operations
in 2001 to 237.
Bishop Venner stressed his admiration for the sacrifices made by the
British forces fighting in Afghanistan but also urged the need for a
reassessment of how the Taliban are viewed.
“We’ve been too simplistic in our attitude towards the Taliban,” said
Bishop Venner, who was recently commissioned in his new role by Dr
Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury.
“There’s a large number of things that the Taliban say and stand for
which none of us in the west could approve, but simply to say
therefore that everything they do is bad is not helping the situation
because it’s not honest really.
“The Taliban can perhaps be admired for their conviction to their
faith and their sense of loyalty to each other.”
Besides their attacks on the armed forces, the Taliban have also been
responsible for public beatings, amputations and executions and have
launched bomb attacks on the civilian population in Afghanistan.
They often refer to foreign forces as “Crusaders” in an echo of the
religious wars of the Middle Ages.
The bishop said that some of their methods of combat are not
honourable or acceptable, but argued that it was unhelpful to demonise
them.
“We must remember that there are a lot of people who are under their
influence for a whole range of reasons, and we simply can’t lump all
of those together.
“To blanket them all as evil and paint them as black is not helpful in
a very complex situation.”
Bishop Venner said that everyone in Afghanistan, including the
Taliban, would have to be included in discussions to find a solution
to the conflict.
“Afghanistan is going we hope in the end to find a way to live
together with justice and prosperity for all. In order to do that we
have to involve all the people of Afghanistan to find it.
“It is that lasting and just peace that will in the end justify the
sacrifices our servicemen and women have made."
In the meantime, he said, the Government has “a moral duty” to ensure
that the army is properly equipped.
Colonel Richard Kemp, a former commander in Afghanistan who has
written about the insurgency, said the bishop was being naïve.
“We clearly need to understand our enemy but that is more of a
military issue rather than a religious one," he said.
“There are elements in the Taliban who do not act from a religious
perspective and it is important to understand and turn them around.
“But there are many others who will not be persuaded. Their central
creed and ethos is about violent oppression which comes from a
politics of extreme religion that has very little to commend it in
terms that we would recognise or appreciate.
“In many ways it is a mistake to compare their faith of extreme holy
war with the kind of religion of peace and understanding that the
bishop follows. They certainly wouldn’t show understanding of his
faith.”
Earlier this year, Peter Davies, the mayor of Doncaster, claimed that
British society could learn from Taliban family values. He said that
under the Taliban, Afghanistan had an “ordered system of family
life”.
Last month David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, offered parts of the
Taliban "an alternative to fighting'' and said men now fighting
against British forces should be encouraged to sit in the Afghan
parliament.
His comments came a day after a new military strategy was unveiled
that talked of the need to negotiate with the Taliban, offering them
money or immunity from prosecution in order to secure peace.
bademiyansubhanallah
Investigators believe someone known as Saifullah recruited the five
Americans through an exchange of e-mails. He then tried to arrange for
them to head to the border with Afghanistan.
Mustafa Abu Maryam, center, a youth pastor, listens as Mahdi Bray of
the Muslim American Society speaks in Alexandria, Va., home to the
five young American men arrested in Pakistan. (Haraz N. Ghanbari /
Associated Press / December 11, 2009)
December 13, 2009
E-mail Print Share Text Size
Reporting from Sargodha, Pakistan, and Washington - The investigation
of five American Muslims held on suspicion of having links with
terrorist groups has focused on a Pakistani militant whom the young
men communicated with over the Internet and who became their primary
contact as they tried to make their way to Afghanistan, Pakistani
authorities said Saturday.
As Pakistani law enforcement officials began questioning for the
fourth day the close-knit group from a multiethnic, working-class
enclave in Virginia, investigators sought more information about a
suspected Pakistani militant they knew only as Saifullah.
Investigators believe that Saifullah recruited the Americans, some of
whom were college students, through an exchange of e-mails in late
summer and the fall. Saifullah then tried to arrange for them to head
to Pakistan's tribal areas along the Afghan border, sanctuaries for
the Pakistani Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Although investigators have not determined which militant group
Saifullah was affiliated with, they believe he was based in Hangu, a
district in North-West Frontier Province adjacent to the tribal areas
where the Taliban presence is strong.
"They wanted to go to the tribal areas, and [Saifullah] was guiding
them through e-mails and cellphone conversations," said Javed Islam, a
police official in Sargodha, the central Pakistani city where the
Americans were detained. "We've checked his location, and he's from
Hangu."
The account police provided Saturday began to answer questions about
how the group might have been radicalized. The story reinforces
impressions that the journey was not well planned and shows, experts
said, that the path to jihad, or holy war, is not straight or easy.
Unlike several alleged U.S. Islamic militants accused this year of
training and plotting with Al Qaeda, the five men from Alexandria,
Va., do not appear to have influential contacts in the extremist
networks in Pakistan. Their difficulties are reminiscent of recent
cases in which extremists were wary of Westerners, fearing
infiltration by informants or rebuffing green recruits.
"I think these groups have thought about some of the recent high-
profile cases in the media and they are thinking: 'Are these guys
spies?' " said Evan Kohlmann, an independent investigator who works
closely with security forces around the world. "Or are they so inept
they could be a liability?"
The five men range in age from 18 to 24 and are U.S. citizens of
Pakistani, African and Egyptian descent. They lived within blocks of
one another in the Washington suburb.
They were arrested Wednesday in Sargodha, a city in Punjab province
regarded as a hotbed for militants who have strengthened ties with the
Pakistani Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Police say the Americans flew to Pakistan in late November with the
hope of waging jihad against U.S. forces in Afghanistan. But the five
have not been charged.
On Saturday, they were transferred from Sargodha to the eastern city
of Lahore and were questioned by a team of Pakistani police
investigators and intelligence agents, said Islam, the police
official. A team of FBI agents had also questioned the men in
Sargodha.
The detainees told interrogators that YouTube video postings by
Saifullah depicting militant attacks on U.S. troops in Afghanistan
caught their attention, according to Pakistani police. The Americans
attached comments to the postings praising the attacks, and eventually
learned that the videos were posted by someone named Saifullah.
Saifullah is a common name meaning "sword of Allah." Several militant
chieftains in Pakistan are named Saifullah, but experts said it was
doubtful that any of them would have communicated extensively with
unknown Americans.
"It might be a recruiter with jihad experience, but not necessarily
high in the hierarchy," Kohlmann said. "It could be an entrepreneurial
19-year-old."
The five men arrived in Karachi, Pakistan, on Nov. 30, stayed one
night and traveled to the nearby city of Hyderabad, where they
appeared at a madrasa, or Islamic seminary, run by Jaish-e-Muhammad, a
Pakistani militant group with ties to Al Qaeda. The men asked to join
the group, but were rejected, said Sargodha Police Chief Usman Anwar.
The Americans then went to Lahore, where they approached Jamaat-ud-
Dawa, an extremist group affiliated with Lashkar-e-Taiba, the militant
organization accused of engineering the November 2008 attacks in
Mumbai, India, that killed 166 people. Again, the men were rebuffed,
police said.
These extremist groups disseminate a lot of English-language
propaganda and operate offices in populated areas, so they have been
gateways to training camps, combat and even Al Qaeda plots for
Westerners over the years, authorities said. The rejections of the
five young Americans underscore the apparently makeshift nature of an
odyssey that relied mainly on the e-mail contact and the fact that one
American had a family home in Sargodha, said a U.S. counter-terrorism
specialist, who asked not to be named because he is not authorized to
speak publicly.
"It seems . . . they just jumped into the ocean to see what they could
find," the specialist said.
The five eventually went to Sargodha, where they stayed at a home
owned by the parents of one of the men, Umar Farooq. His parents,
Khalid and Sabira Farooq, live in Virginia but were at their home in
Sargodha when the men arrived.
Islam said Farooq's parents did not know about the group's intentions
and learned that they had left the U.S. only after another son there
called to alert them.
Khalid Farooq does not share his son's radical beliefs and was angered
by Umar's actions, said Islam, the Sargodha police official.
Khalid Farooq, 55, was arrested with the five young men and remained
in custody while authorities decided whether to charge him for not
informing police that the men were staying with him.
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-pakistan-americans13-2009dec13,0,2745653.story
chhotemianinshallah
By ERIC SCHMITT
Published: December 14, 2009
KABUL, Afghanistan — The American military’s top officer arrived
Monday in Afghanistan on an unannounced visit to confer with military
commanders and Afghan officials as the first of thousands of
reinforcements bound for Taliban-controlled southern Afghanistan
arrive this week.
The visit by the officer, Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, is his first to Afghanistan since President Obama
this month ordered an additional 30,000 troops by next fall, raising
the American total to about 100,000 forces. A fresh battalion of
Marines is deploying into contested Helmand Province this week.
Admiral Mullen will visit troops and commanders in southern and
eastern Afghanistan, and meet with the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai,
in Kabul, at the beginning of a weeklong swing through Central Asia.
The admiral’s trip follows a week of congressional testimony by Gen.
Stanley A. McChrystal, the top military commander in Afghanistan, and
Karl W. Eikenberry, a retired three-star Army general who is the
United States ambassador in the country.
The general and the ambassador expressed full support for the new
strategy, which aims to knock back the Taliban with a surge of forces,
giving time and space for the United States and the Afghan government
to train more than 240,000 Afghan soldiers and national police
officers to take over security duties, district by district.
Mr. Obama has set July 2011 for the start of an Amercian withdrawal,
but senior United States officials have said the pace and scope of
that drawdown will depend on conditions on the ground.
“This extended surge of 30,000 U.S. troops, coupled with additional
contributions from our NATO allies, gives General McChrystal all the
forces he needs in 2010 to reverse the momentum of a growing and
increasingly lethal insurgency,” Admiral Mullen told reporters in
Washington last week.
But he also warned deploying forces at Camp Lejeune, N.C., and Fort
Campbell, Ky., that the next several months would be especially
bloody, as American and NATO forces seek to dislodge Taliban fighters
from large swaths of territory in the south and east, and then protect
Afghan population centers.
“I thought it was very important to look those in the eye who are
actually going to face this threat and be open and honest with them
about those expectations,” Admiral Mullen said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/world/asia/15mullen.html?_r=1
bademiyansubhanallah
Mon Dec 14, 2009 9:15pm GMT
BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany's defence minister tried on Monday to fend
off attacks over his handling of a row about a German-ordered air
strike in Afghanistan that killed civilians by saying opposition
parties had the same information he had.
Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, who has rejected calls to resign, also
confirmed reports the September 4 strike had targeted Taliban as well
as two fuel tankers. Speculation about that has unleashed a fresh
storm about the German troops' mandate.
"The Taliban were also a target of this bombardment -- the Taliban and
the tankers -- and the opposition were informed of this," Guttenberg
said at a party event in Munich.
The 38-year-old, widely seen as a rising star among Chancellor Angela
Merkel's conservatives, went on to turn the tables on his opponents
who have accused him of lying.
"As far as the accusations of deception and lies in my period of
office are concerned, I can only say that (SPD chief Sigmar) Gabriel
and (Greens chief Juergen) Trittin must protect themselves from
allegations of deception," he added.
A furore over new details of the strike, carried out by a U.S.
warplane at the request of German ground forces, has created a big
problem for Merkel as she weighs up whether to boost troop levels in
Afghanistan.
Kabul says the attack killed 30 civilians and 69 Taliban.
The row has already claimed the job of cabinet minister Franz Josef
Jung, defence minister at the time of the strike and the head of
Germany's armed forces.
Guttenberg, who succeeded Jung as defence minister in October, has
insisted he will keep his job. "I will stay, even if there is a storm
going on around me," Guttenberg told RTL television late on Sunday.
But his political opponents have seized on weekend media reports which
said the strike was the result of an "escalation strategy" approved by
the chancellor's office in the summer which allowed troops to remove
leading Taliban members.
Some SPD and Green lawmakers say such tactics go against the
parliamentary mandate under which German troops have been sent to
Afghanistan, a charge the government rejected.
"The idea that the fundamental basis of the mandate has changed is
wrong," said a government spokesman, responding to more than an hour
of questions on the subject at a news conference.
Germany's foreign and defence policy is still affected by the legacy
of the Nazi past and every deployment is subject to intense public
scrutiny. Attacking other than in self-defence is a particularly
sensitive subject.
A parliamentary committee starts an investigation of the strike on
Wednesday and over coming months Guttenberg, and possibly even Merkel,
will be grilled.
Opposition politicians want Merkel to make a statement to parliament
to explain whether documents had been kept from her and whether the
mandate for German troops had changed.
Germany has more than 4,000 soldiers in Afghanistan, making it the
third largest contingent in the NATO-led force. They are mostly in
northern areas and the government has refused to send them to the more
dangerous south.
(Writing by Madeline Chambers; Editing by Jon Hemming)
© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved
http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFTRE5BD4WV20091214?sp=true
chhotemianinshallah
14 Dec 2009, 2234 hrs IST, PTI
WASHINGTON: As the US administration seeks to expand its highly
successful drone strikes to Quetta, where many of the high-profile
terrorists are said to be hiding, Pakistani authorities warned of
severe fallout, a news report said today.
"The prospect of Predator aircraft strikes in Quetta, a sprawling
city, signals a new US resolve to decapitate the Taliban. But it also
risks rupturing Washington's relationship with Islamabad," the Los
Angeles Times reported today.
The US daily said the American officials are pushing to expand the
drone strikes to Quetta, the provincial capital of Balochistan, to put
pressure on the government to pursue Taliban leaders based in the
city. The US daily said American officials believe it is essential to
push Pakistanis to take more serious actions against those using its
territory as its sanctuary.
"What the Pakistanis have to do is tell the Taliban that there is too
much pressure from the US; we can't allow you to have sanctuary inside
Pakistan anymore," an unnamed US official was quoted as saying by the
newspaper.
However, there are other in the administration who are more skeptical
of such a move.
The warning has come from Pakistan too. "We are not a banana
republic," a senior Pakistani official involved in discussions of
security issues with the Obama administration was quoted as saying.
If the US follows through, the official said, "this might be the end
of the road."
President Barack Obama, in his interview to the CBS yesterday, said
that the US wants more cooperation from Pakistan in this regard.
chhotemianinshallah
Obama's Indecent Interval
Despite the U.S. president's pleas to the contrary, the war in
Afghanistan looks more like Vietnam than ever.
BY THOMAS H. JOHNSON, M. CHRIS MASON |
DECEMBER 10, 2009
As German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer once said, truth is
ridiculed, then denied, and then "accepted as having been obvious to
everyone from the beginning." So let's start with the obvious: There
isn't the slightest possibility that the course laid out by Barack
Obama in his Dec. 1 speech will halt or even slow the downward spiral
toward defeat in Afghanistan. None. The U.S. president and his
advisors labored for three months and brought forth old wine in bigger
bottles. The speech contained not one single new idea or approach, nor
offered any hint of new thinking about a conflict that everyone now
agrees the United States is losing. Instead, the administration
deliberated for 94 days to deliver essentially "more men, more money,
try harder." It sounded ominously similar to Mikhail Gorbachev's
"bloody wound" speech that led to a similar-sized, temporary Soviet
troop surge in Afghanistan in 1986.
COMMENTS (29)
But the Soviet experience in Afghanistan isn't what everyone is
comparing Obama's current predicament to; it's Vietnam. The president
knows it, and part of his speech was a rebuttal of those comparisons.
It was a valiant effort, but to no avail. Afghanistan is Vietnam all
over again.
In his speech, the president offered three reasons why the two
conflicts are different. And all are dead wrong. First, Obama noted
that Afghanistan is being conducted by a "coalition" of 43 countries
-- as if war by committee would magically change the outcome (a
throwback to former President George W. Bush's "Iraq coalition"
mathematics). The truth is, outside of a handful of countries, it's
basically a coalition of pacifists. In fact, more foreign troops
fought alongside the United States in Vietnam than are now actually
fighting with Americans today. Only nine countries in today's 43-
country coalition have more than 1,000 personnel there; nine others
have 10 (yes, not even a dozen people) -- or fewer. And although
Australia and New Zealand have sent a handful of excellent special
operations troops to Afghanistan, only Britain, Canada, and France are
providing significant forces willing to conduct conventional offensive
military operations. That brings the coalition's combat-troop
contribution to approximately 17,000. Most of the other 38 "partners"
have strict rules prohibiting them from ever doing anything actually
dangerous. Turkish troops, for example, never leave their firebase in
Wardak province, according to U.S. personnel who monitor it.
In Vietnam, by contrast, there were six countries fighting with the
United States. South Korea alone had three times more combat troops in
that country (50,000) than the entire coalition has in Afghanistan
today. The Philippines (10,500), Australia (7,600), New Zealand (500),
Thailand (about 1,000), and Taiwan also had boots on the ground. So
the idea that Afghanistan's coalition sets it apart doesn't hold
water.
The president went on to assert that the Taliban are not popular in
Afghanistan, whereas the Viet Cong represented a broadly popular
nationalist movement with the support of a majority of the Vietnamese.
But this is also wrong. Neither the Viet Cong then, nor the Taliban
now, have ever enjoyed the popular support of more than 15 percent of
the population, according to Daniel Ellsberg, the senior Pentagon
official who courageously leaked the Pentagon Papers revealing the
military's endemic deceit in the Vietnam War.
123NEXT Save over 50% when you subscribe to FP. Justin Sullivan/Getty
Images
Thomas H. Johnson is research professor of the Department in National
Security Affairs and director of the Program for Culture and Conflict
Studies at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif.
M. Chris Mason, a retired Foreign Service officer who served in 2005
as political officer for the provincial reconstruction team in
Paktika, is senior fellow at the Program for Culture and Conflict
Studies and at the Center for Advanced Defense Studies in Washington.
(29)
NORMAN ROGERS
10:19 PM ET
December 10, 2009
You're forgetting who is running this war
The Petraeus/McChrystal method of fighting this war will make 2010 a
quiet enough year in Afghanistan to easily refute your opinions.
First, there will be truckloads of cash spread about, and it will fall
in the hands of people who will talk to their dumb little buddies
about how "we're taking the year off" from fighting the Americans.
This will buy loyalty, temporarily, and ease the attacks on coalition
forces.
Second, there will be a change in the rules of engagement, and U.S.
forces will not be out front practicing "COIN" because they will be
moved to larger bases and will not patrol as much, nor will they use
the roads as much, because that would increase casualties.
Third, all Petraeus and McChrystal have to do is not lose the media
war (they're not going to try to do COIN with National Guard troops),
and that means they have to eliminate as much of the violence as
possible AND reduce American casualties. Never mind that what
constitutes an attack today will suddenly not be a data point or a
recorded event next year--they control the metrics, they control the
numbers, and they will show progress.
Now, I could very well be wrong, but that's what I think will happen
next year. Afghanistan will quiet down, everyone will take the year
off and regroup, and then, when the media have lost interest and the
public attention is focused elsewhere, we will quietly withdraw, stop
paying people to not attack us, and the real sorting out of who will
run Afghanistan will happen as we roll out of town.
Your theories presuppose that everything will continue as is; American
money is going to buy us a year off and everyone will simply sit on
their hands and wait for the drawdown to start. Just as the American
people are getting ready to pick a new President, this President can
trot out his new National Security Adviser (Petraeus) and his new
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (McChrystal) and we can have medals for
everyone.
GOEDEL
11:18 PM ET
December 10, 2009
Johnson and Mason: a clear analysis; Rogers neglects fervor.
The future for Pres Obama is a return to Chicago in 2013, much like
LBJ's to Texas in 1969.
The Rogers-critique seems to neglect the motivation of the Taliban and
of other insurgents in Af. The Taliban is a religiously committed
group. They want the westerners (us) out. They are not for sale, in my
view. That is also true of many others among the insurgents. They
should not be confused with the relatives of Hamid Karzai, as I think
Mr Rogers does.
Remember, too, that LBJ tried to buy off Ho Chi Minh with promises of
extensive aid programs were he only to cease supporting the Viet Cong
and make a deal. What Johnson never understood was that he was dealing
with a nationalist, a man who wanted the foreigners out, just as do
the insurgents in Af.
NORMAN ROGERS
6:17 AM ET
December 11, 2009
Are you forgetting the fact
that the Taliban pay BETTER than the Afghan Army? Are you forgetting
that there is a world wide heroin trade that finances the Taliban
efforts right now?
All we have to do is pay slightly better than the Taliban.
It would seem to me that if there really was a religious commitment,
everyone would fight for free. In Afghanistan, that's not the case. In
the year ahead, I would be willing to bet that the money will flow to
those who can influence a number of fighters to stay home or work with
American interests. The nationalistic fervor is there, and it makes
the Taliban a broad based insurgency, but it has to use money to
finance operations. Once we can bring more money to bear, we will see
fewer attacks.
GOEDEL
10:59 AM ET
December 11, 2009
We are trying to buy them off.
We now pay Taliban for not striking some of our supply convoys.
Unquestionably, money talks. You claim it talks more loudly than
anything else, and that's where you are wrong in my view - just as
wrong as was LBJ.
NORMAN ROGERS
12:05 PM ET
December 11, 2009
Sorry, but
Petraeus and McChrystal have read that playbook, and they know how to
apply money to stop an insurgency. Their track record is better than
LBJ's.
There are far too few hardcore Taliban to make any gains in
Afghanistan--that's why they need to use narco-trafficking money to
buy their own homegrown mercenaries to carry out attacks. There is a
nationalistic fervor, but there's also crippling poverty. What we're
going to do next year is going to buy us time to withdraw, just as it
bought us time to find an out in Iraq.
No one's talking about an LBJ-styled overarching plan to win
everything. I'm talking about an 18 month strategy for reducing the
attacks on US forces, getting Afghanistan off the front page, and
getting us out on a pre-approved timeline that helps re-elect
President Obama. Of course there's no way they could possibly win
everything--these men are too smart to believe that nonsense. But they
know how to apply the lessons learned in Iraq to the problem of
getting us out of Afghanistan.
BULLWHACKER
12:16 PM ET
December 11, 2009
Ho Chi Minh..
was a Marxist first. Schooled by Stalin at the "toiler's School" in
Moscow, he was then sent to China to foment communist revolution in
Indochina, undercover as Borodin's interpreter. Wanted by the French
Surete, Ho was forced to stay in China, for decades. He sent his
communist cadres south to foment unrest and execute any potential
adversaries. This meant all serious nationalists. His first
revolution, in 1938, failed. He would only come to power in 1945-46
with the help of the OSS, under Archimedes Patti's Deer Team, and by
fooling the Emporer into believing Ho had the full backing of
President Truman. In the ensuing years Ho's govmt terrorized the
countryside, killing or starving 2.5 million, and most "nationalist"
opponents. The formation of the Viet Cong in the south was wholly
owned by Uncle Ho in the north.
GOEDEL
8:37 PM ET
December 11, 2009
To Rogers and Bullwhacker
LBJ never had an "over-arching plan" in Vietnam. Grotesquely, he never
had any plan at all; just as is the case with President Small-Change.
His fervent dream was to get out of Vietnam in a manner that would
protect his adminstration from the rabid-right who were still seething
because we lost something we never owned, China. I gather that
President Yes-We-Can is seeking a similar exit, but who knows? It's
hard to know what that narcissist wants (talk about Slick-Willy!)
except self-glorification. You like generals? You put your faith in
their ability to buy off the enemy. I thought generals were fighters
not bribers.
On Ho Chi Minh and the bad things he and other did in Vietnam and in
southeast Asia: We, Americans have no responsibility for the misdeeds,
crimes of others. We have responsibility for our own crimes in other
lands. Too often the intention to do good is really an excuse for
doing bad. In regard to bad guys, such as Saddam, Taliban et al., my
principle is the one that guides medicine since Hypocrates: First do
no harm! How much harm we have done using the excuse of the Cold War!
We killed millions. We assisted or instigated the killing of hundreds
of thousands in Latin America alone. How much harm we have done in
with our sanctions and our warring in Iraq TO PUNISH THEN TO REMOVE A
MAN WE FIRST ABETTED (Saddam!) How much harm we are doing in
Afghanistan TO PUNISH AND REMOVE INSURGENTS WE SUPPORTED (Mujahadin!)
Our first President, George Washington, is our best model for the
times: don't meddle in foreign countries, he adviised. Lead other
nations by your example of good government, he advised. Keep your
treaties with other nations, and extend the possibility of good
relations with all. He was our only general to make a good president,
and he was a great one. Don't think because he presided so long ago
that his wisdom no longer applies. It's just that we are too stupid to
appreciate it.
MARIO HERRERA
1:18 AM ET
December 11, 2009
USA citizen tortured in Denmark.
I am convinced that this war is going to be lost, for the following
reason. If Barack Obama that is my president conspiracy to silence
that I have been tortured in Denmark, just to cover some political
interests. I am feeling really sorry for all those USA soldiers that
are spending their life in the hands of a person that got not
experience, got not decision and eventually like me, will be abandon
in the middle of nowhere just for political conveniences. My name is
Mario Herrera, American citizen, with Cuban backgroung from Hialeah,
Florida and because two racist Danish police look me like an Arabic
person, they brutalized me. The USA embassy in Copenhagen, USA State
Department, FBI and actually president Barack Obama in total silence.
You can listen audio conversations with the FBI officer in Copenhagen
and USA State Department officer, at www.norightsforyou.com and
www.twitter.com/NoRightsForYou Help to speak out. By the way, Obama
Nobel Prize, it is the equivalent to the invincible Emperator's
cloths.
JBHIKER
11:25 AM ET
December 11, 2009
Put the focus on Afghanistan
I heard the President (before he was elected) say he would change the
focus to Afghanistan and away from Iraq. So now he has done exactly
what he said he would do. I think his problem now is an Army
leadership that really does not want to win but rather would prefer
containment. I don't think there is a win in Afghanistan, not as long
as Muslims are unwilling to become world citizens. Islam is a racist
and fascist nationalism much like the Nationalism of Germany was
before WW2. I think the Armed Forces know this. And maybe I do, too.
These people have no desire to become citizens of the world. If we
could trust them to stay out of our business, wouldn't that be great?
But we cannot. The Mullahs will not actively denounce the Taliban
ideology.
To a Muslim, secularism is the same as Atheism. The 5 Americans in
custody in Pakistan are proof enough to me that this is a War against
beliefs and there is no hope of the world getting back to normal in my
lifetime. Just like in the Crusades, we have to adopt tactics that
will cause these people to grow weary of war. These men have to die
for there to be peace and it must be done by men who are not afraid of
History's judgment. But I am afraid Greed will prevail and you cannot
blame Obama for that. What we need to declare is a War against Greed
and Selfishness. That is where the real battles should be. All
suffering in history can be traced back to greed and selfishness.
BULLWHACKER
11:31 AM ET
December 11, 2009
Comparisons...
to Vietnam are not serious unless or until the cut off of all military
aid is weighed. This is when Nam was lost. Period. This is Obama's
Afghan strategy. But first, you need a villain. Obama and Carville
have chosen Karzai. Karzai as "villain" started with Carville advising
his opponent. That opponent dropped out when Obama/Carville realized
demonizing Karzai was a better strategy for withdrawal, but only if
Karzai remained in power.
As for Karzai's kleptocracy, show me. The left made tremendous gains
from Madame Nhu's insane behavior and I believe claims of Karzai's
corruption are greatly exaggerated. Just another of Alinsky's rules
applied to foreign policy ("...isolate the individual, freeze it...")
In Nam there were a succession of individuals to isolate, from Diem to
President Thu. In this regard, it is Nam all over again.
THE SMARTEST PERSON EVER
11:52 AM ET
December 11, 2009
This is an inaccurate comparison...
Of course O'Bama knows that his plan will probably fail. However this
isn't a reflection of the the soundness of the plan - it's an
indication that ANY plan will probably fail.
He's between a rock and a hard place though. What are his
alternatives? He can't just withdraw - doing so would disgrace him,
the Democrats, and the US and would also make all our efforts there an
exercise in futility. Sure, that might happen anyway but he can't
allow it to be because America gave up so he's compelled to save face
by sticking with the war.
But that wouldn't be the worst consequence. The real danger of failure
is that we go back to square one and the bad guys go back to business-
as-usual so he needs to persue the original intent of the war and make
America safe by making Afghanistan strong, stable, and friendly in
order to prevent the bad guys from moving in again.
The president wasn't saying that the Afghanistan-based attacks make
the war morally just (as compared to Vietnam), he was saying that it
made the war necessary.
BULLWHACKER
12:51 PM ET
December 11, 2009
The plan...
is to make you hate Karzai so much you'll want our troops out. One
more year of villification ought to do the trick. Everyone wonders why
Obama can't quite bring himself to villify the Taliban or even mention
Jihad. Doesn't fit the withdrawal template. He won't want you taking
you eyes off of the evil Karzai. Just like the public was fed-up with
the corrupt South Vietnamese govmt when congress cut off all military
aid. Just sit back and watch. Just like Vietnam and Cambodia, the
Taliban will regain power and execute our former allies. Unlike
Vietnam, the Taliban will welcome terrorist training camps that export
terror, once again. But what the hell? At least we'll have health care
most Americans don't want, just like LBJ got his War on Poverty or
Great Society programs. Same song, second verse: the redistribution of
wealth.
BLEEBO
12:16 PM ET
December 11, 2009
Obama is the most intelligent?
"Obama is one of the most intelligent men ever to hold the U.S.
presidency." If so, why does he refuse to release his college grades
or SAT score? Such a absolute statement certainly needs more proof. I
suspect that the IQ scores of both Obama and Biden combined would fail
to equal that of Thomas Jefferson.
BULLWHACKER
12:55 PM ET
December 11, 2009
I'll second that motion.
I'll second that motion.
THE SMARTEST PERSON EVER
9:34 AM ET
December 14, 2009
Or maybe...
...he doesn't have to expose every record that has ever documented his
life. He's the goll-durn president and you think he needs to submit to
your demanding to see what he got in college?
First, who cares anyway?
Second, sure this is supposed to be 'by the people', but who do you
think you are?
Last, is there anything that doesn't rile your paranoia ridden
conspiracy addled brains?
SCHAFERBR8387
3:02 PM ET
December 11, 2009
Exit Strategy or Election Strategy?
After the Normandy Invasion, did Roosevelt tell the American people,
"well, we'll give it a shot for 18 months and if things are going
well, we're outta here."
How can you ask our military to fight and die, if defeat is an
option?
If defeat's an option, then withdraw NOW. If Afghanistan is not worth
dying for in 18 months, it's not worth it today either. I can't
believe the American people elected a man this inexperienced and this
unqualified as CIC. It's going to get good Americans killed.
ITONLYSTANDSTOREASON
6:06 PM ET
December 12, 2009
Exit Strategy
How many months after D-day did the Germans surrender? June 6 1944 to
May 8 1945?
Roosevelt didn't have to put a limit on it because we had the men and
material - and of course the task was to defeat an enemy government,
not build up an allied one.
We've spent 8 years in Afghanistan using the tactics that failed in
Vietnam; finally McChrystal and Petraeus are ready to go with the
tactics that did much to secure the countryside. (After we withdrew,
the North switched strategy from insurgency to invasion - flexibility
is key.)
The fatal flaw was the South Vietnamese government's corruption and
weakness. We've got a governmental problem in Afghanistan too, and the
White House and general recognize it. The purpose of the 18 month
timeline is to remind Karzai that he's got to take part in defending
his government, and to tell the people that our occupation is not
forever, which would fuel widespread opposition and non-Taliban
insurgencies.
If you think the timeline was a premature announcement of a future
surrender, you haven't been following Obama. (I suspect you're one of
the critics who was charging him with not supporting his generals a
month ago.) Defying the left-wing base, he is doing what he said he'd
do in the campaign: making a commitment to success in Afghanistan. I
don't think he's going to change his mind in a year, or in two. It
would have been the easiest thing for him to apologize in Stockholm
for sending more troops, but he defended his decision and the role of
the US in providing for global security for the past half-century. You
might start to listen more closely, and to follow the nuances. Anyone
capable of seeing black and white could follow Cheney; you can't fit
Obama into that box without lossing half of the picture. (To go for a
cheap shot, he's not black or white, he's both at the same time and
hence neither.)
We wish it were simple, that an all-in/all-out strategy would suffice.
It isn't simple, so we're walking a damn tightrope. Obama knows it,
and hopefully you will come to see it too.
VICENTEDUQ
3:03 PM ET
December 11, 2009
What a wonderful article Mr Johnson and Mr Mason
I agree 100% - I have been dedicated to the study of these Two Wars :
Afghanistan and Iraq and have read hundreds of articles. You are
right !
I have been talking of the DeWesternization of Islam after the Suez
Canal Episode of 1956 to 1957. Afghanistan and Iraq are part of that
Historical Process of DeWesternization, no matter how many Coca Colas
each arab drinks per day. No matter how many Burgher Kings or
McDonald's in the lands of Minarets calling to prayer.
Many of the articles in the written press fail because they wrongly
assume Great Love and Loyalty for America in the theaters of War. But
nobody knows for sure what people think. Polls are useless and Love
doesn't guarantee Loyalty.
You can love and admire the Americans but want them out of your land
as soon as possible.
The British celebrating Queen Victoria's Jubilee in 1897 never thought
that the next two generations would see the Fall of the British
Empire.
The Future of Foreign Policies :
http://prophesizing.blogspot.com
Vicente Duque
NORM
3:37 PM ET
December 11, 2009
Obama's Indecent Interval
So you are saying that Obama is cynically sacrificing American lives
in a cause that he knows to be false to facilitate his reelection?
What kind of rotten bastard would do something like that?
RABBELAY
4:12 PM ET
December 11, 2009
Schopenhauer and truth
That opening line by Schopenhauer was perfect.
But, please, the point of stopping this war is not to admit loss, to
avoid another Vietnam or failure...it is to stop the senseless and
illegal slaughter and the waste of resources.
If the USA based more of its policy on positive, workable, honest
principles, trying to improve peoples lives in these regions, then,
obviously, we'd see improvement in the strategic situation as well.
SCHAFERBR8387
4:55 PM ET
December 11, 2009
Yeah Right
RABBELAY
The American people have sent billions of dollars to the Afganis and
thousands of committed individuals who sacrificed their lives, money
and time to try to help these people.
What we get in return is that they torture then slaughter our people,
our troops and use the money to buy weapons.
What that part of the world needs is the cleansing affect of a large,
nuclear weapon. These miserable bunch of people want to see Allah so
badly, let's send them there today. It's a win-win.
KHALID MUFTI
7:54 PM ET
December 11, 2009
You are the Walt and Mearsheimer...
Johnson and Mason, you are the Walt and Mearsheimer of the Afghan
conflict. Just as W and M showed us in clear terms the truth about the
Israel Lobby, you have shown us that there is really no light at the
end of the Salang Tunnel.
I salute you.
PISIK0
4:06 AM ET
December 12, 2009
reklam ver
porno izle
film izle
ITONLYSTANDSTOREASON
7:40 AM ET
December 12, 2009
Wrong
It's a shallow analysis tjat looks only at the negatives. I'm not
going to waste my time on an extensive refutation in front of this
crowd, however, I'm merely going to point to the persistent rumors
that Petraeus has a political career in mind; you don't run for office
on the basis of failure (unless you're Carly Florino), and that the
conventional wisdom was against Petraeus in Iraq, also.
No, it won't look like VE day, and yes, we'll have a smaller group of
troops there for 10 years, but the Taliban is not taking over in the
next 7 years. And I'm willing to take bets on it.
VICENTEDUQ
1:03 PM ET
December 12, 2009
Your second paragrah may be right - but isn't that losing ?
You may be right in your consideration that American Troops can stay
indefinitely, and prevent the Afghan Rebels from taking over.
But they are not going to erradicate all opposition and the Afghan
Rebellion.
That is a way of losing and humiliation. That is a form of defeat.
Imagine what World Opinion thinks of an Eternal Stalemate.
If America can't dominate one of the Poorest, most Backward and most
Illiterate countries. Then what can America do ??
When Russia invaded Georgia. America did nothing ! .... Just empty
words. That shows how these conflicts : Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan
are weakening the USA. Slowly like Radioactive Decay.
That is why the article of Johnson and Mason is a cherished treasure
for me. And I will continue looking for everything that they write.
http://prophesizing.blogspot.com
Vicente Duque
ITONLYSTANDSTOREASON
5:43 PM ET
December 12, 2009
Perspective
Re: Georgia. What did the US do when Russia put down uprisings in
Hungary and Checkoslovakia?
Re: Residual Forces, who long have we had troops in South Korea?
Peace isn't something that is accomplished once and for all - it
requires effort and maintenance.
There were terrorists cells in Greece, Germany, Italy for many years.
Where they ever really defeated? Whatever, the governments survived.
Your concern does you credit, but take heart, man. You can find
reasons for gloom and doom if you look for them, but balance them out
with the positive signs:
Al Qaeda has less than 100 in Afghanistan; the Taliban around 20,000.
If the Afghan Army is mostly Tajik, the Taliban is mostly Pushtun, and
Pushtun are about 40% of the population, concentrated in a few
provinces. Local militia forces with some national support can control
them elsewhere, so a majority of the country can be secured with a
little effort.
The Pushtun are an ethnic group, not a nation. They are not naturally
united; there are tribes and villages with their own leaders who would
not welcome coming under the control of a national government with
leaders who practive a fairly harsh form of Islam and wish to impose
it on others. They've been down that road before.
And contra our dismal author's statements, the Taliban are not all
Taliban. There is the hardcore leadership, and there are those whose
alliance is moveable, influenced by fear, opportunity, income.
As for the feckless Afghan security forces, Petraeus has been down
this road before. Remember Iraq in 2006 The police were partisan
militias and the army couldn't fight. Our dismal authors concentrate
on the number who leave. But to build an army, you depend on the ones
who stay, and if you have to cycle through 100,000 enlistees to find
20,000 who are fighters, you're still 20,000 ahead.
Vietnam: the authors do a fair job of rebutting Obama's talking
points, but fail to make their case. In Vietnam, the insurgents had
the state of North Vietnam and aid from Russia behind them. In
Afghanistan, the Taliban don't control a state and any assistance they
get from Pakistan has to be discrete and limited. In Vietnam, there
were no effective power centers to oppose the Viet Minh outside of the
national government; in Afghanistan there are many. As for national
interest, the world was much less globalized in the 1960s - it would
have been very hard for anyone from Vietnam to inflict damage in US
territory. These days, people, goods, capital, and ideas travel
farther and faster - it is becoming more dangerous to think that
events in remote Afghanistan are isolated from what happens here at
home.
If you really want to know the state of war in Afghanistan, go the the
Small Wars Journal website. The people who contribute are often people
on the front lines, people who have skin in the game.
So buck up - things are difficult, but not irretrievably so.
RKERG
1:25 PM ET
December 12, 2009
So you have a better plan?
While many Obama bashers are making a living by attacking every thing
he does and making up things that he didn't do, this comparison of
Afghanistan to Vietnam is absurd. Al Quaeda and the Taliban do not
have the numbers of the North Vietnam army and there are no jungles in
Afghanistan to hide in. If the bad boys want to fight they will have
to travel out in the open and our drones will see them. Also, unlike
Vietnam, there will be no gradual build up. This little surge will put
the bad guys back on their heels long enough to give the Afghans a
chance to run their own country. What they do with it is up to them,
and, no, since I am not a neo con, I am not going to tell you that
Afghanistan is going to be transformed into a great shining beacon of
democracy for others in the region to emulate. What it is going to be
is on its own with a chance to succeed.
NUANCE
7:23 PM ET
December 12, 2009
Decisions matter, but execution is the key
AfPak is a hornet's nest whichever way you stir it, but I don't
believe that President Obama's decision is based on any kind of
cynical calculation. The analogy with Vietnam isn't sensible either.
It's more insightful to understand what we are dealing with in this
situation. We made a mistake from day one after 9/11 in not being
decisive in taking out the Taliban, terminating the Al Qaeda
leadership, and putting Pakistan on notice. Wars, if they must be
fought, should be carried out with speed and decisiveness. Now, here
we are in a situation where a well-funded and well-armed Taliban seeks
to regain control over Afghanistan, Al Qaeda wishes to establish a
caliphate reaching out from Afghanistan, and for Pakistan, it makes
sense to humor the US, suckers that we are, while backing the Taliban
as its proxy in Afghanistan. There is no question that this has to be
confronted, both militarily and politically, but it will take a much
more creative coalition and much tougher blend of hard and soft power.
BOBINNM
8:36 PM ET
December 12, 2009
Are these people really a threat to us?
The conversation on this subject is really worth reading. Great point-
counterpoints. I'm retired military, anytime my brothers in arms are
in harms way, I must question. Are they defending America or are they
sacrificing for a political whim? NUANCE-hit the nail between the
eyes.
The Taliban really are not a threat, they simply liked being in power
and really only want that again. Their perversion of Islam makes sense
to them and anything else is not worth talking about. They know Karzi
for what he is, a corrupt policial hack propped up by 60,000 American,
British and French troops. If we leave, it will be just like after the
Russians left. A power vaccum will exist and need filling. Enter the
Taliban again.
To keep this short, in the final analysis, backing off Muslim power
struggles is the best way out of this. Let them kill each other and
one day God will be sorting out the winners from the losers. This
struggle with in Islam has been going on since Mohammad diddled his
first 9 year old wife.
American lives are not worth keeping Karzi in power or defending a
people who really only need to know where their next meal is coming
from and will they be able to keep warm this winter. We need those
combat hardened troops back here on our borders. The threat is from
the south and not a few religious perverts. They are going to do what
they want to do, us being there just gives them an excuse to kill
innocent Afgans and the cream of our country.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/12/10/sorry_obama_afghanistans_your_vietnam
bademiyansubhanallah
Obama Defends Afghanistan Timetable Plan
Gives His First Extensive Interview Since the Announcement of His
Troop Build-Up in Afghanistan
Play CBS Video
Video
President Obama
In his first extensive interview since his speech announcing his troop
build-up in Afghanistan, President Obama talks about his plans for
Afghanistan, the economy and more. Steve Kroft reports.
Video
Afghanistan and Pakistan
The extended conversation between Steve Kroft and President Obama on
these pressing issues.
Video
Obama Slams "Fat Cat Bankers"
"The people on Wall Street still don't get it."
President Barack Obama (CBS)
(CBS) As President Obama approaches his first anniversary in the
White House, some of the public's enthusiasm for his ambitious agenda
at home and abroad is on the wane. While he helped avert a worldwide
financial collapse, and may well achieve his goal of health care
reform during his first year in office, the U.S. economy is still very
weak with double digit unemployment, and his approval ratings are at
the lowest point of his presidency.
This past week, before he left for Europe to accept the Nobel Peace
Prize, 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Kroft sat down with the
president in the Map Room at the White House for a wide ranging
discussion, much of it focused on his decision to send an additional
30,000 troops to Afghanistan.
Steve Kroft: Was that the most difficult decision of your presidency
so far?
President Barack Obama: Absolutely.
Kroft: Why?
Obama: Because when you go to Walter Reed and you travel to Dover and
you visit Arlington and you see the sacrifices that young men and
women and their families are making there is nothing more profound.
And it is a solemn obligation on the part of me as commander in chief
to get those decisions right.
Kroft: In your West Point speech, you seemed very analytical,
detached, not emotional. The tone seemed to be, "I've studied this
situation very hard. It's a real mess. The options aren't very good.
But we need to go ahead and do this." There were no exhortations or
promises of victory. Why? Why that tone?
Obama: You know, that was actually probably the most emotional speech
that I've made, in terms of how I felt about it. Because I was looking
out over a group of cadets, some of whom were gonna be deployed in
Afghanistan. And potentially some might not come back. There is not a
speech that I've made that hit me in the gut as much as that speech.
And one of the mistakes that was made over the last eight years is for
us to have a triumphant sense about war.
There was a tendency to say, "We can go in. We can kick some tail.
This is some glorious exercise." When in fact, this is a tough
business.
Kroft: Most Americans right now don't believe this war is worth
fighting. And most of the people in your party don't believe this is a
war worth fighting.
Obama: Right.
Kroft: Why did you go ahead?
Obama: Because I think it's the right thing to do. And that's my job.
If I was worried about what polled well, there are a whole bunch of
things we wouldn't have done this year.
Kroft: Do you feel like you've staked your presidency on it?
Obama: There are a whole bunch of things that I've staked my
presidency on, right. That are tough, and entail some risks. There's
no guarantees. But that I'm confident we have addressed in the best
possible way.
Kroft: The West Point speech was greeted, it was greeted with a great
deal of confusion.
Obama: I disagree with that statement.
Kroft: You do?
Obama: I absolutely do. Forty million people watched it. And I think a
whole bunch of people understood what we intend to do.
Kroft: But it raised a lot of questions.
Obama: Now, it-
Kroft: Some people thought it was contradictory. That's a fair
criticism.
Obama: I don't think it's a fair criticism. I think that what you may
be referring to is the fact that on the one hand I said, "We're gonna
be sending in additional troops now." On the other hand, "By July
2011, we're gonna move into a transition phase where we're drawing our
troops down."
Kroft: Right.
Obama: There shouldn't be anything confusing about that. That's-
Kroft: Well-
Obama: First of all, that's something that we executed over the last
two years in Iraq. So, I think the American people are familiar with
the idea of a surge. In terms of the rationale for doing it, we don't
have an Afghan military right now, security force, that can stabilize
the country. If we are effective over the next two years, that then
frees us up to transition into a place where we can start drawing
down.
Now, the other point of confusion I think that at least the press has
identified is this notion of, "Well, what happens on July 2011?"
Play CBS Video
Video
President Obama
In his first extensive interview since his speech announcing his troop
build-up in Afghanistan, President Obama talks about his plans for
Afghanistan, the economy and more. Steve Kroft reports.
Video
Afghanistan and Pakistan
The extended conversation between Steve Kroft and President Obama on
these pressing issues.
Video
Obama Slams "Fat Cat Bankers"
"The people on Wall Street still don't get it."
President Barack Obama (CBS)
(CBS) Kroft: Right. What does happen?
Obama: And what I've said is that we then start transitioning into a
draw down phase. How many U.S. troops are coming out, how quickly will
be determined by conditions on the ground.
Kroft: So, if the situation is not going well in July of 2011, you can
decide - and I'm not making light of this - to send home the band and
a couple of civil affairs units and non-essential units and keep as
many combat people on the ground as are necessary to perform the
mission.
Obama: Well look, as commander in chief, obviously, I reserve the
option to do what I think is gonna be best for the American people at
that point in time. And our national security. But we will know, I
think, by the end of December 2010 whether or not the approach that
General McChrystal has discussed in terms of securing population
centers is meeting its objectives. And if the approach that's been
recommended doesn't work, then yes, we're gonna be changing
approaches.
Kroft: Why set a deadline? I mean, Senator McCain, most prominent.
Obama: Right. And the answer is that in the absence of a deadline, the
message we are sending to the Afghans is, "It's business as usual.
This is an open-ended commitment." And very frankly there are I think
elements in Afghanistan who would be perfectly satisfied to make
Afghanistan a permanent protectorate of the United States. In which
they carry no burden. In which we're paying for a military in
Afghanistan that preserves their security and their prerogatives.
That's not what the American people signed off for when they went into
Afghanistan in 2001. They signed up to go after al Qaeda.
Kroft: The main reason we're doing this is al Qaeda, why send 30,000
troops to Afghanistan, because according to your government's own
estimates, there may be fewer than 100 al Qaeda fighters in
Afghanistan. That the rest are in Pakistan and the tribal
territories.
Obama: What you have here between the borders of Afghanistan and
Pakistan is the epicenter of violent extremism directed against the
West and directed against the United States. This is the heart of it.
This is where Bin Laden is. This is where its allies are. It's from
here that you see attacks launched not just against the United States,
but against London, against Bali, against a whole host of countries.
Kroft: And half of this territory is in Afghanistan-
Obama: Half of this territory is in Afghanistan, half of it is in
Pakistan. Ultimately, in order for us to eradicate the problem, to
really go after al Qaeda, in an effective way, we are going to need
more cooperation from Pakistan. There is no doubt about that.
Kroft: You're a student of history. The British lost the Revolutionary
War, and the Americans lost the Vietnam War, in spite of the fact that
they won almost all the major battles. They lost it because it got to
be too expensive, it was too far away, and not enough people cared
about it. Aren't you facing some of those same problems right now?
Obama: I think what is true is that if we have an open-ended
commitment in a place like Afghanistan with no clear benchmarks for
what success means, that the American people who have just gone
through the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, who've
already endured eight years of war at some point are gonna say
"enough." And rightly so.
Kroft: In Afghanistan, you can make the argument that it's not really
even a country, that it is a collection of tribes. That and it is run
really by a very corrupt government, some of whose major figures are
alleged to be involved in the drug business, including the brother of
the president. How are you gonna deal with this?
Obama: (LAUGHS) Look, I -
Kroft: I mean, how are you gonna do this?
Obama: Look, Steve, I mean the reason I laugh is because this is
really hard. And there's not a question that you asked that I haven't
asked in meetings, and that I don't ask myself. I don't have the
luxury of choosing between the ideal and what exists on the ground. I
have to make decisions based on how, given where we are right now, how
do we get to the best possible place.
Kroft: Okay. Let's change the subject.
Obama: Okay, why not.
Kroft: Jobs.
Obama: We can talk about Afghanistan some more.
(CBS) The president's frustration is understandable. While the
economy is showing signs of growth and job losses may finally be
bottoming out, the unemployment rate is still at ten percent. This
past week, he outlined a new jobs program built around tax breaks for
small businesses, more infrastructure projects for local and state
governments, and cash rebates for people make their homes more energy
efficient.
Obama: What I'm interested in is a targeted jobs package that can help
to boost what's already taking place. Companies are already starting
to hire again. Is there a way to boost their confidence and I think
there is.
The president hopes to subsidize the jobs program and pay down some of
the deficit with billions of dollars being returned to the government
under the TARP program. Some Wall Street banks have recovered to the
point where they can not not afford only pay back the loans, but once
again hand out huge bonuses to their employees.
At three of the biggest banks, they are expected to total $30 billion.
That's roughly what it will cost the government to finance the surge
in Afghanistan, and President Obama is furious.
Obama: I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of, you
know, fat cat bankers on Wall Street. The only ones that are gonna be
paying out these fat bonuses are the ones that have now paid back that
TARP money and aren't using taxpayer loans.
Kroft: Do you think that's why they paid it back so quickly?
Obama: I think in some cases that was a motivation. Which I think
tells me that the people on Wall Street still don't get it. They don't
get it. They're still puzzled. "Why is it that people are mad at the
banks?" Well, let's see. You guys are drawing down $10, $20 million
bonuses after America went through the worst economic year that it's
gone through in decades, and you guys caused the problem. And we've
got ten percent unemployment. Why do you think people might be a
little frustrated.
Kroft: Do you think that they've made some of these bonuses based in
part on the generosity and policies of the United States government to
help put the financial system back on its feet?
Obama: I think there is no doubt about it. And what's most frustrating
me right now is you've got these same banks who benefitted from
taxpayer assistance who are fighting tooth and nail with their
lobbyists up on Capitol Hill fighting against financial regulatory
reform.
Kroft: Why is it taking so long?
Obama: Well, everything appears to take long in Congress. We can talk
about health care (LAUGHS) if you want. This is democracy in action.
Kroft: You mentioned Congress and health care. You ran for office
based on the fact that you were going to try and reform the system.
You wanted to change the status quo in Washington. Then you came in,
and you turned over your top priority, health care, to the Congress.
Obama: That's not true.
Kroft: Five-hundred-thirty-five well, you laid out what you wanted,
and you set the guidelines.
Obama: Right. Exactly.
Kroft: And then stood back and turned it over to 535 people who
produced a 2,000-page bill that is-
Obama: What?
Kroft: Well, I haven't read it. So
Obama: Finish your thought, Steve.
CBS) Kroft: I can't really. I'd say some people think is
incomprehensible. Not very many people have read it. I've not met
anybody who's read it.
Obama: Steve, let's be clear here. Seven presidents have tried to
reform a health care system that everyone acknowledges is broken.
Seven presidents have failed up until this point. We are now that
close to having a bill that does all the things that I said and most
experts said needed to be done when we started this process. It is not
only deficit neutral, but will actually bring down the deficit
according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Kroft: You think it's going to pass?
Obama: Yes.
Kroft: Do you think it's gonna pass before Christmas?
Obama: I think it's-
Kroft: In the Senate?
Obama: I think it's going to pass out of the Senate before Christmas.
Kroft: Are you going to be involved in that process?
Obama: I've been involved the whole time.
At that point, we thought the interview was over, and then our
executive producer suggested one more question.
Kroft: The gate crashers.
Obama: Yeah.
Kroft: By now, you must know-
Obama: It's really a shame that I had to go through a whole 60 Minutes
interview without talking about the gate crashers. (LAUGHTER) Good
catch.
Kroft: You must know, you must know what happened. Can you share that
with us?
Obama: I think that what I know is what everybody knows. Which is that
these people should not have gotten through the gate.
Kroft: Were you unhappy with your social secretary?
Obama: I was unhappy with everybody who was involved in the process.
And so, it was a screw up. Now, I don't think that from a policy
perspective, this was the most important thing or even the fifth or
sixth most important thing that happened this week, although it got
the most news.
Kroft: Were you angry when you found out about it?
Obama: Yes.
Kroft: Seriously angry? Right.
Obama: Yes. That's why it won't happen again.
Produced by Michael Radutzky and Frank Devine
© MMIX, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
by sean71z December 15, 2009 10:32 AM EST
Albert Einstein proposed dropping atom bombs on every concentration
camp in Poland and Germany to end the holocaust of Jews. He argued for
the overwhelming destructive force of nuclear energy on Nazis. NATO's
potential attack on Iran is misconceived. Unleashing so much power on
a country will not end war. Instead, a careful assessment of tactics
and security will render the enemy to an impotent state. Obama must
consider this a district by district strategy in Afghanistan. The
Rebels show no interest in surrender.
by deltablue December 14, 2009 2:30 PM EST
You people do realize half, if not more, of Obama's administration is
from Wall Street. You also realize his campaign, as is every American
election for high office, is funded by Wall Street. You are also aware
Wall Street funds insurgencies around the world. Insurgencies that
tend to get out of hand to the point the American military is sent in
to attempt to clean things up so Wall street and other American
businesses can move in, set up shop and peddle their products to the
unwashed masses. You people also realize this has been going on for
decades, in both Republican and Democratic administrations. From
reading most of these comments, I not sure you do.
by Sky017 December 14, 2009 4:56 PM EST
Obama should have hired someone with fresh new ideas.
Obama should have HIRED PETER SCHIFF who was one of a few voices
predicting what has happened.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw
by bubbadubba December 14, 2009 12:10 PM EST
Real American patriots trash and don't support their freely and
democratically elected President they support dictatorship!
You are great Americans my friends for trying to make the President
fail and spewing lies and hate about him!
Now go listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck on Treason Radio.
by zootsuithap December 14, 2009 7:29 PM EST
oh, how you all trashed bush and tried to make him a failur during
wartime? You are pathetic.
by starving1968-1 December 14, 2009 11:24 AM EST
by infantryman1968 December 14, 2009 9:47 AM EST
hungry 1968
So basically what you are saying if it were not for the Republicans,
Iraq, Afghanistan, Our enemies gatting nukes, Recession, Health Care,
Cap and Tax and all of the other things that Obama knew about before
he ran fof office he would have been a Great President?
You cant be serious.
Let's see.....
Iraq was started by republicans for no apparent reason.
Afghanistan was started by republicans, but our troops were abandoned
in the field by their CIC who put more effort into his fabricated war,
than he did in the ACTUAL "war on terror".
Iran and North Korea BOTH got their nukes while Bush was in office.
(Apparently the Bush policy of "ignore them and maybe they'll go away"
didn't work.)
The desperately needed health care reform was IGNORED by Bush.
Anti-environmental practices were ENCOURAGED by Bush and his cabal.
The recession was caused by the conservatives ignoring all of their
oversight responsibilities, and allowing big banks to set their own
rules and monitor themselves.
And now Obama hasn't cleaned up all of those Bush-made disasters in
less than ONE YEAR, so you consider him a failure.
That's rich.
Reply to this comment by velma179 December 14, 2009 10:18 AM EST
by BryanW217i December 14, 2009 1:40 AM EST
Velma, just suck it up and admit, like millions of others, that you
made a mistake by voting for this guy. It's obvious that he is failing
every day to do what he promised, and it's obvious he will never be
the leader Americans expected him to be. The man is all smooth words,
and nothing else. Just admit you made a mistake and try harder next
time not be such a voting dumba**s.
************
I rest my case.
PS -- How incredibly Un-American your attitude is.... we all have the
RIGHT to our own counsel in exercising our RESPONSIBILITY to vote for
the candidate of our CHOICE.
Just because your team LOST, doesn't make those that handed you that
defeat wrong.
I have NO regrets -- oh well, I DO actually. Sincerely, I regret the
THREE votes I gave Ronald Reagan... by the end of his presidency he
was indeed a different man than the one I first embraced when I came
of age in CA!
by cbs4me3 December 14, 2009 10:12 AM EST
Steve, you ought to have told him that he is in office almost a year
and it is high time he take "personal" responsibility. He is setting a
horrible trend shirking his responsbility. Two words: Accountability
and Transparency.
by velma179 December 14, 2009 10:34 AM EST
by cbs4me3 December 14, 2009 10:12 AM EST
Steve, you ought to have told him that he is in office almost a year
and it is high time he take "personal" responsibility. He is setting a
horrible trend shirking his responsbility. Two words: Accountability
and Transparency.
*************
Excuse me?
I have heard (with my own ears) President Obama take personal
responsibility on many issues.
He is by no means shirking his responsibility.
Are you aware of the FACT that the country (and the whole world) do
not STOP on any given January 20th Inauguration Day... and then START
up again with all brand new problems and issues to face.
ALL Presidents inherit the situations left them from the last
administration. This is nothing new.
What was different in 2009 was the extent and scope of MULTIPLE, very
serious issues -- War and the Economy just the two most immediately
serious.
It is incorrect to blame the decisions this current president makes on
a person who is no longer the Head of State, that is true.
But to think this president should bear the ACCOUNTABILITY for the
things that preceded him in office is not only unrealistic -- it is
flat out WRONG!
Period.
by dontemailmeagain December 14, 2009 1:15 PM EST
...and he blames the "eight years" prior when the LAST TWO the Dem's
controlled congress.
by velma179 December 14, 2009 10:12 AM EST
by BryanW217i December 14, 2009 1:48 AM EST
Letsmakeachange , you are 100% correct. It's already well documented
that had we changed just one thing about Obama--his skin color from
black to white---McCain would have won.
Folks, this is a no-brainer.
Deny it, and you know you are only lying to yourself.
***************
So when I say I voted for Obama because of who he is; his character
and vision for ALL Americans, with no regards for what he LOOKS like
or his ancestry -- YOU want to call me a liar?
Why? Because you project what you think onto others.
And you are wrong.
Well documented? By who? Racists-R-Us....
You would know what that group thinks... that's for sure BryanW217i
(your own words as written on these comment boards document THAT!)
by starving1968-1 December 14, 2009 7:54 AM EST
by perceptions5 December 14, 2009 7:42 AM EST
Do you realize that you posted this response, as a reply to spam
advertising?
ROFL!!
Too Funny!!
Reply to this comment by tdentino December 14, 2009 7:43 AM EST
Just give him he own show so I know when not to watch.
by starving1968-1 December 14, 2009 7:38 AM EST
by BryanW217i December 14, 2009 1:31 AM EST
I think the reason Jimmy Carter smiles so much these days is finally,
FINALLY, after 29 years, a President even worse than him is in the
White House. Now, THAT took quite some doing, eh?
There are several that are far ahead of Carter on the "worst
presidents list".
Topping the list is Bush Jr (by far number one), Reagan the traitor,
Hoover, Nixon, Ford, and Bush Sr.
Carter's biggest problem, is also Obama's biggest problem: he
inherited financial and economic disasters from the conservatives that
presided over record inflation and recession rates. (Those are
apparently hallmarks of conservative presidents.)
by infantryman1968 December 14, 2009 9:47 AM EST
hungry 1968
So basically what you are saying if it were not for the Republicans,
Iraq, Afghanistan, Our enemies gatting nukes, Recession, Health Care,
Cap and Tax and all of the other things that Obama knew about before
he ran fof office he would have been a Great President?
You cant be serious.
by velma179 December 14, 2009 10:34 AM EST
by cbs4me3 December 14, 2009 10:12 AM EST
Steve, you ought to have told him that he is in office almost a year
and it is high time he take "personal" responsibility. He is setting a
horrible trend shirking his responsbility. Two words: Accountability
and Transparency.
*************
Excuse me?
I have heard (with my own ears) President Obama take personal
responsibility on many issues.
He is by no means shirking his responsibility.
Are you aware of the FACT that the country (and the whole world) do
not STOP on any given January 20th Inauguration Day... and then START
up again with all brand new problems and issues to face.
ALL Presidents inherit the situations left them from the last
administration. This is nothing new.
What was different in 2009 was the extent and scope of MULTIPLE, very
serious issues -- War and the Economy just the two most immediately
serious.
It is incorrect to blame the decisions this current president makes on
a person who is no longer the Head of State, that is true.
But to think this president should bear the ACCOUNTABILITY for the
things that preceded him in office is not only unrealistic -- it is
flat out WRONG!
Period.
by velma179 December 14, 2009 10:18 AM EST
by BryanW217i December 14, 2009 1:40 AM EST
Velma, just suck it up and admit, like millions of others, that you
made a mistake by voting for this guy. It's obvious that he is failing
every day to do what he promised, and it's obvious he will never be
the leader Americans expected him to be. The man is all smooth words,
and nothing else. Just admit you made a mistake and try harder next
time not be such a voting dumba**s.
************
I rest my case.
PS -- How incredibly Un-American your attitude is.... we all have the
RIGHT to our own counsel in exercising our RESPONSIBILITY to vote for
the candidate of our CHOICE.
Just because your team LOST, doesn't make those that handed you that
defeat wrong.
I have NO regrets -- oh well, I DO actually. Sincerely, I regret the
THREE votes I gave Ronald Reagan... by the end of his presidency he
was indeed a different man than the one I first embraced when I came
of age in CA!
Reply to this comment by cbs4me3 December 14, 2009 10:12 AM EST
Steve, you ought to have told him that he is in office almost a year
and it is high time he take "personal" responsibility. He is setting a
horrible trend shirking his responsbility. Two words: Accountability
and Transparency.
by velma179 December 14, 2009 10:34 AM EST
by cbs4me3 December 14, 2009 10:12 AM EST
Steve, you ought to have told him that he is in office almost a year
and it is high time he take "personal" responsibility. He is setting a
horrible trend shirking his responsbility. Two words: Accountability
and Transparency.
*************
Excuse me?
I have heard (with my own ears) President Obama take personal
responsibility on many issues.
He is by no means shirking his responsibility.
Are you aware of the FACT that the country (and the whole world) do
not STOP on any given January 20th Inauguration Day... and then START
up again with all brand new problems and issues to face.
ALL Presidents inherit the situations left them from the last
administration. This is nothing new.
What was different in 2009 was the extent and scope of MULTIPLE, very
serious issues -- War and the Economy just the two most immediately
serious.
It is incorrect to blame the decisions this current president makes on
a person who is no longer the Head of State, that is true.
But to think this president should bear the ACCOUNTABILITY for the
things that preceded him in office is not only unrealistic -- it is
flat out WRONG!
Period.
by dontemailmeagain December 14, 2009 1:15 PM EST
...and he blames the "eight years" prior when the LAST TWO the Dem's
controlled congress.
by velma179 December 14, 2009 10:12 AM EST
by BryanW217i December 14, 2009 1:48 AM EST
Letsmakeachange , you are 100% correct. It's already well documented
that had we changed just one thing about Obama--his skin color from
black to white---McCain would have won.
Folks, this is a no-brainer.
Deny it, and you know you are only lying to yourself.
***************
So when I say I voted for Obama because of who he is; his character
and vision for ALL Americans, with no regards for what he LOOKS like
or his ancestry -- YOU want to call me a liar?
Why? Because you project what you think onto others.
And you are wrong.
Well documented? By who? Racists-R-Us....
You would know what that group thinks... that's for sure BryanW217i
(your own words as written on these comment boards document THAT!)
by infantryman1968 December 14, 2009 9:47 AM EST
hungry 1968
So basically what you are saying if it were not for the Republicans,
Iraq, Afghanistan, Our enemies gatting nukes, Recession, Health Care,
Cap and Tax and all of the other things that Obama knew about before
he ran fof office he would have been a Great President?
You cant be serious.
by starving1968-1 December 14, 2009 7:54 AM EST
by perceptions5 December 14, 2009 7:42 AM EST
Do you realize that you posted this response, as a reply to spam
advertising?
ROFL!!
Too Funny!!
by tdentino December 14, 2009 7:43 AM EST
Just give him he own show so I know when not to watch.
by starving1968-1 December 14, 2009 7:38 AM EST
by BryanW217i December 14, 2009 1:31 AM EST
I think the reason Jimmy Carter smiles so much these days is finally,
FINALLY, after 29 years, a President even worse than him is in the
White House. Now, THAT took quite some doing, eh?
There are several that are far ahead of Carter on the "worst
presidents list".
Topping the list is Bush Jr (by far number one), Reagan the traitor,
Hoover, Nixon, Ford, and Bush Sr.
Carter's biggest problem, is also Obama's biggest problem: he
inherited financial and economic disasters from the conservatives that
presided over record inflation and recession rates. (Those are
apparently hallmarks of conservative presidents.)
by infantryman1968 December 14, 2009 9:47 AM EST
hungry 1968
So basically what you are saying if it were not for the Republicans,
Iraq, Afghanistan, Our enemies gatting nukes, Recession, Health Care,
Cap and Tax and all of the other things that Obama knew about before
he ran fof office he would have been a Great President?
You cant be serious.
by revolt54 December 14, 2009 3:28 AM EST
People seem to forget that if it wasn't for Bush and how he destroyed
the country, Obama wouldn't have been elected. You can thank the
failed policies and war mongering of Bush for Obama's successful
campaign. He's helped the unemployed, trying to regulate the fatcats
on Wall St., and make a needed change in healthcare. I can't think of
one thing Bush did to make yours or my life better. Bush will go down
like Hoover in history. Maybe he should be hanging with King Louis 16
and Marie Antoinette, out of touch with the average working man.
by zootsuithap December 14, 2009 6:49 PM EST
bush destroyed the country. oh, that is a good one. i suppose he is to
blame for the subprime fiasco (or was it clinton, dodd, barney frank,
jessie jackson, al sharpton and the rest of that gang). the economy
was fine until the dems took over in '06. They've ruined this country,
and want to use the excuse to take over control of everything!
by stryker54 December 13, 2009 11:21 PM EST
I'm an oldwhiteguy2 and I didn't believe his campaign and didn't vote
for him than or would now. He's just a snake oil salesman bent on
tramping on the constitution and bill of rights. I even told everyone
I knew he would and he is.
by wfw3536 December 13, 2009 11:17 PM EST
Some plan to move in another 30,000 of our brave men and women into
this fight and then tell them we are pulling out in 18 months. That
sure is a terrible message for our troops. If he really doesn't want
to fight this war why send more of our rroops in harms way. And it
took Obama 3 months to figure this out.
by pubcrawler December 13, 2009 10:44 PM EST
I used to be a cutting producer but not an editor. I think you might
be in radio? I know what a dongle is, but not sure about Rosetta Stone
(except, of course, for the historical reference which the software
references, and the language tapes). We used to use Avid which is the
model upon which Final Cut Pro is based. Did you see the interview?
Did you notice the anomaly?
by HopeforAmerica December 13, 2009 10:18 PM EST
I think President Obama has shown great leadership time and time
again. I'm glad I voted for him. He truly is looking out for main
street and for the safety of all Americans.
God Bless America and God Bless President Obama!
by ctb4679 December 13, 2009 10:16 PM EST
It's a dead end effort that won't accomplish anything in Afghanistan.
A waste. It is an even worse effort than the time America wasted in
Vietnam, which was a complete waste of lives, time, and effort.
Because there is no government in Afghanistan, and Al Quaeda is in
Pakistan. Obama will listen to whoever talks to him last, apparently.
by pensacola8-2009 December 13, 2009 10:09 PM EST
President Obama is serving his position very well and has assembled an
extremely effective team of cabinet members and advisers.
I am hoping that political opponents take a better position in the
future instead of wallowing in their self-pity under leadership of
radio and television entertainers. Yes, the Republican Party self-
destructed in 1974 and again in 2007. If they could throw out their
oppressive agenda, they might have a chance.
At this time, I will exhibit my complete approval for President Obama.
He does have to make some headway on LGB issues and get forceful about
it, expecially in military service, because we could get more
enlistments so sustain the war efforts if the LGB ban was lifted.
by reveal4 December 13, 2009 9:40 PM EST
Watching the 60 Minutes intrerview made me think of FDR. Humor,
wisdom, stoicism, intellect, a grasp of history...a certain grasp of
the sacrifice of the troops and their families, a firm sense of
leadership, a certainty of purpose, a clear focus...This is a
President, he has taken the reins and is pursuing his vigorous agenda
for the benefit of the American people. He is upset with Wall Street
and the continuing antics of the big money men, who live in their own
worlds far removed from Main Street and tha average Joe. This is a
President, this is a leader.
by 50BMS13 December 13, 2009 9:29 PM EST
We leave when we win! I like that strategy. Obama deserves praise for
being tough in Camel Country. C'mon B2-A Spirit Bombers!!!
by prcauch December 13, 2009 9:16 PM EST
So velma179, you don't feel at all betrayed by what you have seen to
date? I feel nervous. I hoped and prayed that what was advertised was
what we bought, and now I guess I'm jaded. Oh well, meet the new boss,
same as the old boss. Letting the days go by, letting the water hold
me down...
by veryconcerned1 December 13, 2009 9:13 PM EST
I am most upsset about government and corporate lobbyist who do not
want small businesses to benefit and provide jobs, healthcare, better
pay, etc. etc. Tthere are more hard-working people than those who pull
strings to dictate what's best for the working class, and it's time
for us to make sure the best decisions are made for the majority of
the people, not just a few who want to make their pockets fatter by
creating bigger holes in the pockets of others.
by velma179 December 13, 2009 8:59 PM EST
by Letsmakeachange December 13, 2009 8:28 PM EST
I voted for Barack Obama because he best represents me. That is my
"job" as an American citizen. I have the right and the responsibility
to VOTE for the candidate of my choosing.
I chose Obama because of his intelligence, character and vision. I did
not support EVERYTHING he stood for... I still don't, but I remain
supportive and confident I made the BEST choice.
Your comment is especially deplorable in your affront to others'
racism while you completely deny your own. You don't see it, only
because you also chose something... and that is denial.
It is very clear you play the "race card". Do you not comprehend that
the WRITTEN word is MORE! revealing than the spoken word....?
You represent the very worst in American race relations, I only HOPE
you can find the grace to see your own culpability.
by prcauch December 13, 2009 9:16 PM EST
So velma179, you don't feel at all betrayed by what you have seen to
date? I feel nervous. I hoped and prayed that what was advertised was
what we bought, and now I guess I'm jaded. Oh well, meet the new boss,
same as the old boss. Letting the days go by, letting the water hold
me down...
by palaggi December 13, 2009 8:57 PM EST
What would happen if we removed our troops NOW?
What about all the small community banks? Instead of closing them,
help them like the big banks!
by prcauch December 13, 2009 8:55 PM EST
Man I wish there were an edit or spell check on this thing!
by Omni-Present101 December 13, 2009 8:52 PM EST
Majority Of White America Voted for President Obama.
Obama Won the Popular Vote and the Electoral College, That's Emphatic,
he's been President for 11 1/2 Months, not even a Year.
In 3 more years, he'll have more Presidential Experience than Mitt
Romney, Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty and 2 1/2 year Quitter Sarah Palin
or John Thune.
______________________
Is it Me or is it, All Racist-Bigoted White People Voted for McCain-
Palin in 2008 and [[Lost]]in 2008
If it were Not for White Americans President Obama would Not be
President.
In 2008 Majority of Fair-Competent Did Not Vote for McCain-Palin.
They Did Not want a Semi-Senile Old Man and Incompetent 2 1/2 term
Governor with the Population of Most Small Cities as President & Vice
President.
Reality: The Mayors of Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Philedelphia, Los
Angeles, San Francisco, New York City, Chicago, Detroit, Charlotte NC
& Miami have More People and Responsibilities than The Wasilla Hill
Billy's Entire State of Alaska.
Ask Bloomberg and he'll Tell Ya, Hell Yes, its True.
by Omni-Present101 December 13, 2009 8:48 PM EST
Majority White Americans Voted for President Obama.
Obama Won the Popular Vote and the Electoral College, That's Emphatic,
he's been President for 11 1/2 Months, not even a Year.
In 3 more years, he'll have more Presidential Experience than Mitt
Romney, Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty and 2 1/2 year Quitter Sarah Palin
or John Thune.
______________________
Is it Me or is it, All Racist-Bigoted White People Voted for McCain-
Palin in 2008 and [[Lost]]in 2008
If it were Not for White Americans President Obama would Not be
President.
In 2008 Majority of Fair-Competent Did Not Vote for McCain-Palin.
They Did Not want a Semi-Senile Old Man and Incompetent 2 1/2 term
Governor with the Population of Most Small Cities as President & Vice
President.
Reality: The Mayors of Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Philedelphia, Los
Angeles, San Francisco, New York City, Chicago, Detroit, Charlotte NC
& Miami have More People and Responsibilities than The Wasilla Hill
Billy's Entire State of Alaska.
Ask Bloomberg and he'll Tell Ya, Hell Yes, its True.
Reply to this comment by prcauch December 13, 2009 8:47 PM EST
Well, I'm an oldwhiteguy2 and I dutifully defended him until about
Augist or so when it became apparent he was still in campaign mode,
and when he day after day to affirm or continue the very Bush policies
he decried, without ONCE saying "okay, maybe we were a little naive, a
little overoptimistic about just how complicated things are". The only
strong points to the Kroft interview tonight were when he said "It's
hard" and "It's complicated". Truer truths he's never spoken!!!
Reply to this comment by goeswest December 13, 2009 8:45 PM EST
I just love reading all these people who trash the President on a
daily basis.To those persons I ask,do you think you could do a better
job running the country.Seriously ask yourself this before you go
spouting off on here.DO ANY of you believe that youo this job 24/7 and
deal with the demends of leading the most powerful nation on Earth.
I sure know I couldnt and I know all you arm chair Presidents couldnt
do the job either.
So let Obama do the job he was elected to do.
by velma179 December 13, 2009 8:43 PM EST
by tipperarynyc December 13, 2009 7:52 PM EST
"lol..I don't think the idiot has left the white house...1 year ago he
promised our troops would be home ,we would have no more war, debt
etc."
*********
I have no idea WHO promised these things but he sure doesn't live in
the White House today (or ever...) -- maybe some figment of your
fevered imagination.
Perhaps you should turn off the TV and read a book (if you can...?) or
spend some time with your family or at a shelter, etc. -- helping
those who need care that YOU can provide...?
by fedupwithidiots09 December 13, 2009 8:40 PM EST
As an African American, I am very proud of President Obama. In
addition, as a mature educated american, we wouldnt play the race
card, as Palin and McCain did by always emphasizing his middle name:
Barack Hussein Obama.
How can you expect him to solve 8 years of destruction in less than a
year?!?
by prcauch December 13, 2009 8:39 PM EST
Oops, you're right. the antecendant of that prnoun could be pretty
much anyone who speaks from or about Washington lately... Good catch!
Reply to this comment by prcauch December 13, 2009 8:55 PM EST
Man I wish there were an edit or spell check on this thing!
by mljohns00 December 13, 2009 8:35 PM EST
Restore the Draft, so the wars can end. Right now, all our politicians
have to do is print more money and they can make war forever.
by velma179 December 13, 2009 8:34 PM EST
pubcrawler...
Do you know what has a "dongal" and a "rosetta stone" at it's
mechanical heart?
(just curious -- from your observations, you may work in a "sister"
field to mine...?)
by pubcrawler December 13, 2009 10:44 PM EST
I used to be a cutting producer but not an editor. I think you might
be in radio? I know what a dongle is, but not sure about Rosetta Stone
(except, of course, for the historical reference which the software
references, and the language tapes). We used to use Avid which is the
model upon which Final Cut Pro is based. Did you see the interview?
Did you notice the anomaly?
by kikamybutt December 13, 2009 8:33 PM EST
Change you can believe in,change the greatest nation into shambles!!
No,it's not just you. Polls are evidence of that!!
by fedupwithidiots09 December 13, 2009 8:32 PM EST
what full year are you talking about? I blame Bush everyday that there
are no jobs, apparantly fox news is keeping you really informed
by kikamybutt December 13, 2009 8:29 PM EST
It always comes around to Fox or Bush! Complex issues I guess.Hannity
and palin 2012 lol
by Letsmakeachange December 13, 2009 8:28 PM EST
Is it just me or is anyone else starting to realize that Obama was
elected for the color of his skin(no racisim inteaded) but obviously
not for his qualifications. For now we see that time has told us that
he was a poor choice for the american people and for the
representation for the african american culture which he is not. If
they wanted a black president then they should have been more wise on
the candidate that they chose. Obviously we know now that he will not
serve another term and he probably ruined any chances for a true
qualified black american that would want to run for president. There
are many black americans that are very ashamed that he represents the
black race because he hasn't fulfilled any of his promises foreign or
domestic. I feel that he has done nothing but hurt our country
severly. Hopefully enough mature educated americans will understand my
perspective and not focus on playing the race card as we all know that
was used throughout his campaign which is what won him the position of
being president of our United States.
by kikamybutt December 13, 2009 8:33 PM EST
Change you can believe in,change the greatest nation into shambles!!
No,it's not just you. Polls are evidence of that!!
by fedupwithidiots09 December 13, 2009 8:40 PM EST
As an African American, I am very proud of President Obama. In
addition, as a mature educated american, we wouldnt play the race
card, as Palin and McCain did by always emphasizing his middle name:
Barack Hussein Obama.
How can you expect him to solve 8 years of destruction in less than a
year?!?
by Omni-Present101 December 13, 2009 8:48 PM EST
Majority White Americans Voted for President Obama.
Obama Won the Popular Vote and the Electoral College, That's Emphatic,
he's been President for 11 1/2 Months, not even a Year.
In 3 more years, he'll have more Presidential Experience than Mitt
Romney, Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty and 2 1/2 year Quitter Sarah Palin
or John Thune.
______________________
Is it Me or is it, All Racist-Bigoted White People Voted for McCain-
Palin in 2008 and [[Lost]]in 2008
If it were Not for White Americans President Obama would Not be
President.
In 2008 Majority of Fair-Competent Did Not Vote for McCain-Palin.
They Did Not want a Semi-Senile Old Man and Incompetent 2 1/2 term
Governor with the Population of Most Small Cities as President & Vice
President.
Reality: The Mayors of Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Philedelphia, Los
Angeles, San Francisco, New York City, Chicago, Detroit, Charlotte NC
& Miami have More People and Responsibilities than The Wasilla Hill
Billy's Entire State of Alaska.
Ask Bloomberg and he'll Tell Ya, Hell Yes, its True.
by velma179 December 13, 2009 8:59 PM EST
by Letsmakeachange December 13, 2009 8:28 PM EST
I voted for Barack Obama because he best represents me. That is my
"job" as an American citizen. I have the right and the responsibility
to VOTE for the candidate of my choosing.
I chose Obama because of his intelligence, character and vision. I did
not support EVERYTHING he stood for... I still don't, but I remain
supportive and confident I made the BEST choice.
Your comment is especially deplorable in your affront to others'
racism while you completely deny your own. You don't see it, only
because you also chose something... and that is denial.
It is very clear you play the "race card". Do you not comprehend that
the WRITTEN word is MORE! revealing than the spoken word....?
You represent the very worst in American race relations, I only HOPE
you can find the grace to see your own culpability.
by bigboy8681 December 15, 2009 10:24 AM EST
I did not vote for him because of skin color. I voted for him because
one I saw potential and I voted for change that we needed. Bush wasn't
qualified for **** but he managed to serve 8 years in office it takes
time to fix something that has been going on for 8 years in 11 months.
Some of you Americans are retarded and just plain slow
by Omni-Present101 December 13, 2009 8:26 PM EST
It'll Pass This Year.
If you don't like it, move to Canada,Great Britain,Ireland, Scottland,
Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand or Israel..
My Bad, All those Industrialized Countries I Listed Above, have
Universal Health Care-Single Payer Health Care Plans, we Don't.
Reply to this comment by our4th December 13, 2009 8:19 PM EST
Economic growth, higher oil prices, inflation, higher interest rates
economic slowdown, financial collapse.
When is Israel going to pay us for fighting the wars in Afghanistan
and Iraq? The causation of events US support of Israel.
Tyranny is rule without law. The war on drug use is rule without law.
Who dares to ask the President why is it reasonable to criminalize
marijuana and coca leaves? Ask him why the judiciary reviews these
criminal laws by rational review?
Reply to this comment by fedupwithidiots09 December 13, 2009 8:11 PM
EST
Why is President Obama helping idiots like you? These fat cats are
earning 20 million dollars as bonuses, and you think they make this
country what it is, are you nuts? What happened to the blue collar
workers? They are the ones that made this country.
Where were you when President Bush was spending Billions of american
dollars on Iraqis? Where were you?!?
by deltablue December 13, 2009 8:10 PM EST
"I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers
on Wall Street."
Hahahaha! That's a good one. Are we supposed to believe no one told
him? Fat Cat Banker - Barak! You wanna new job? Pays 400,000 a year,
free health care, free room and board, free transportation, travel the
world - free.
Obama - Yeah! what have I gotta do?
FCB - Not much. Give a few speeches.
Obama - Hell yeah! I'm in.
January 2009
Obama - I gotta what!!! Bail out fat cat bankers? You didn't tell me
that.
FCB - You didn't ask. But that's what you were hired to do.
Obama - I thought I was elected to do this job.
FCB - No. We hired you. And then "the people" confirmed your hire.
Look, you got the same deal Bush got. Do a good job and your contract
will be renewed when it ends in 4 years.
Obama - OK. But what about "the people".
FCB - That's your problem.
Maybe Obama should go to work for Letterman when his contract is up.
by J_LOWDERtheMEANONE December 13, 2009 8:04 PM EST
OH MY F GOD can you people get a grip on reality first off it wasnt a
racial comment you idiot. Their are people out there struggling to eat
right now and you want to complain about things like that!!!!! Youre
an imbusile....i agree with flsunjnky youre fools all of you want to
complain complain complain you you you what about everyone else out
there there are more people in this world than you!!!! Quit being
selfish greedy and self absorbed people OUR president is trying to
help by following his heart and that is a great thing. Its something
has been needed in our government for a long long time. Just so
happens he is the president. Another remark i hated was the
"celebrity" remark another reason i spoke of fools in this comment. He
kind of is you fool....have you ever thought of a few simple words
like senate......congress......house of representatives......um
yeah!!!!! they play a part too and you voted yours to theyre position.
Our president is doing a great job trying and thats all anyone of us
can ask. He is restricted just the same as anyone else on this planet,
but HE is trying to make a difference. Change is not appreciated by
everyone, it never has been since the dawn of our civilization!!!!!
by velma179 December 13, 2009 8:03 PM EST
by prcauch December 13, 2009 7:40 PM EST
Is it possible for him to speak without lying? Doesn't he understand
that some of us aren't sycophantic lapdogs slurping the venom that
flows from his mouth?
*****************
prcauch -- Are you posting in the right place? This article isn't
about Rush Limbaugh...
by prcauch December 13, 2009 8:39 PM EST
Oops, you're right. the antecendant of that prnoun could be pretty
much anyone who speaks from or about Washington lately... Good catch!
by julie1700 December 13, 2009 8:00 PM EST
Thank God that President Obama just continues to do what he thinks is
right --irrespective of all the ridiculous comments I have seen on
this website (and.. in the media). Health care reform was the right
thing- and that is offending the Republicans. Afghanistan- a war whose
window of opportunity was 8 years ago (and now immensely more
difficult because of that lost window of opportunity) is the right
thing- and that is offending the Democrats.
Finally- you should please add to the text of your interview -- the
dripping sarcasm that P. Obama had for your executive producer in
regards to the q on the White House crashers.
by pubcrawler December 13, 2009 7:59 PM EST
Good interview, but way too many cameras. I never liked the ISO on the
correspondent, especially when all he is doing is smirking. Also, the
shot from behind Obama's head had a very distracting pixel visible
(left screen) and only served to show that Obama may be going bald and
that Kroft is as smug as ever. A good editor would have ditched those
shots and stayed on the subject (unless his vain correspondent
insisted upon it). I understand that an opportunity to interview the
President is one which should be fully taken advantage of however,
cutting to the ISO cam during Obama's answer to a question just to see
Kroft, and worse, to the pixellated shot from behind Obama is just bad
television. Maybe they're preparing an obit reel for Kroft. On a
complimentary note - while the gatecrasher question seems dated
tonight, I loved Obama's answer. Great byte! My criticisms may seem
petty, but I love 60 Minutes and would like the program to stick to
it's standards of excellence.
by velma179 December 13, 2009 8:34 PM EST
pubcrawler...
Do you know what has a "dongal" and a "rosetta stone" at it's
mechanical heart?
(just curious -- from your observations, you may work in a "sister"
field to mine...?)
by oldwhiteguy1 December 13, 2009 7:59 PM EST
It seems many posters here suffer from short term memory loss...
Way back in the primaries, Obama promised us many things. Think back-
he promised us change, AND, he promised us it would not be easy to
change the status quo.
He wanted bipartisan and got bi-republicans.
If you voted for McCain, you're a dumb bass. If you voted for Palin,
you're a ***** dumb bass.
Look at my login name- I am an old white guy, but I voted for and
still believe in Obama. Given the chance, he will advance America back
to her place in the world's standing, which will be good for ALL
Americans.
by prcauch December 13, 2009 8:47 PM EST
Well, I'm an oldwhiteguy2 and I dutifully defended him until about
Augist or so when it became apparent he was still in campaign mode,
and when he day after day to affirm or continue the very Bush policies
he decried, without ONCE saying "okay, maybe we were a little naive, a
little overoptimistic about just how complicated things are". The only
strong points to the Kroft interview tonight were when he said "It's
hard" and "It's complicated". Truer truths he's never spoken!!!
by stryker54 December 13, 2009 11:21 PM EST
I'm an oldwhiteguy2 and I didn't believe his campaign and didn't vote
for him than or would now. He's just a snake oil salesman bent on
tramping on the constitution and bill of rights. I even told everyone
I knew he would and he is.
by Omni-Present101 December 13, 2009 7:58 PM EST
Borderline Bull-Spit.
I Bet You THINK Sean Hannity, Rush Limbuagh & Glenn Beck are Hard
Hitting Journalist.
Take Your A!! back to the safe Hate Confines of Fox News
by daffy64 December 13, 2009 7:55 PM EST
Uh..he had money in his coffers because most Americans wanted to see
him elected. And he won.
Why is that so amazing or hard to grasp?
by Omni-Present101 December 13, 2009 7:55 PM EST
he Never Had Your Support. Just an Under Handed Slight on the
President, had he Pulled Troops Out of Afghanistan or Sent 100,000
More Troops, You'd Still Hate Him.
Cut the Bull, You're an Obama Hate Meister, just like Fox
News,Limbuagh,Hannity,Beck & Praeger.
by OnceFree December 13, 2009 7:54 PM EST
Wow, what has happened to 60 Minutes, I remember a "force of hard
hitting news" when I was grownig up. I haven't watched since all the
"Bush Bashing" began but DAMN- softball city with Pres. Obama- the
"Gate Crashers" as the final question after all the softballs- why is
this show still on the air? (can't we get that from "Extra"??? no
wonder our country is a mess- the media has quit investigating our
government- what a shame...
by Youallareidiots December 13, 2009 7:54 PM EST
Oh my god. you among with millions of other idiot americans are why im
ashamed to live in this country.Will all of you stop fighting against
the president. He is the least corupt president weve had in a long
time. He is trying to do good. And if you cant stop the hate then go
in a storm cellar for the remainder of the presidency with your bible
and your Glenn Beck and stay away from me.
Reply to this comment by tipperarynyc December 13, 2009 7:52 PM EST
lol..I don't think the idiot has left the white house...1 year ago he
promised our troops would be home ,we would have no more war, debt
etc.can't blame Bush no more ....he's 1 FULL year in office..I think
we are the idiots ..he's traveling with the family on T.V. every turn
[alas with no answers] WHY ..stay home and take care of your
country ..it's nice to have Air force 1 at your disposal
by fedupwithidiots09 December 13, 2009 8:32 PM EST
what full year are you talking about? I blame Bush everyday that there
are no jobs, apparantly fox news is keeping you really informed
by velma179 December 13, 2009 8:43 PM EST
by tipperarynyc December 13, 2009 7:52 PM EST
"lol..I don't think the idiot has left the white house...1 year ago he
promised our troops would be home ,we would have no more war, debt
etc."
*********
I have no idea WHO promised these things but he sure doesn't live in
the White House today (or ever...) -- maybe some figment of your
fevered imagination.
Perhaps you should turn off the TV and read a book (if you can...?) or
spend some time with your family or at a shelter, etc. -- helping
those who need care that YOU can provide...?
by Omni-Present101 December 13, 2009 7:51 PM EST
Ronald W. Reagan Blamed Former President Jimmy Carter, To stay in
Office 2 Terms With Alzheimers, You Loved that Guy Huh ?
Reply to this comment by spotswoode December 13, 2009 7:48 PM EST
Steve "Puffball" Kroft. Do you really believe the answers POTUS
provided you or where you guys told not to ask any uncomfortable
questions... and please, the party crashers question. You get to
interview the most powerful man in the world and you ask that one?
by Omni-Present101 December 13, 2009 7:58 PM EST
Borderline Bull-Spit.
I Bet You THINK Sean Hannity, Rush Limbuagh & Glenn Beck are Hard
Hitting Journalist.
Take Your A!! back to the safe Hate Confines of Fox News
by kikamybutt December 13, 2009 8:29 PM EST
It always comes around to Fox or Bush! Complex issues I guess.Hannity
and palin 2012 lol
by mcdchi December 13, 2009 7:47 PM EST
This administration and Congress need to read a fantastic article
written in Atlantic Monthly magazine on why the health care funding
system is the way it is, and better ways to reduce health care costs.
It is written in plain English by a layman and probably is more
understandable than the 2,000 page monstrosity they are talking about
foisting on the American people.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care
Mr. President, call time out, go to Hawaii for the holidays, and start
over in 2010.
by Omni-Present101 December 13, 2009 8:26 PM EST
It'll Pass This Year.
If you don't like it, move to Canada,Great Britain,Ireland, Scottland,
Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand or Israel..
My Bad, All those Industrialized Countries I Listed Above, have
Universal Health Care-Single Payer Health Care Plans, we Don't.
by Omni-Present101 December 13, 2009 7:47 PM EST
Can Someone Tell Me how Many Times People like YOU make Off The Wall
Questions like Yours....
He's the President Of the USA...DUH
He's been President of the USA 11 1/2 Months and 0ver 40 million
people Watched his Afghanistan Decision to Increase More Troops.
If You can't Stand it, why in the Hell are You Watching 60 Minutes &
Tabulating How Many Damn Times President Obama has been on 60 Minutes.
Tells Me, You're Enthralled By President Obama's Appearences.
So much so You're Tabulating His Interviews.
You Don't like President Obama, why in the Hell are you Watching and
Tabulating Every 60 Minute Interview he's had ?
Jeez Louise
Reply to this comment by tipperarynyc December 13, 2009 7:47 PM EST
WHEN IS HE GOING TO STOP BLAMING OTHER PRESIDENTS ..HE'S IN OFFICE 1
YEAR NOW ...he has done NOTHING to help us ..my nephew is GOING WITH
his 30,000..I'm sorry did I miss something //I thought we would be
outta there by now
I'm voting to let Dog the Bounty Hunter go in and find osama//////Mr.
President
by Omni-Present101 December 13, 2009 7:51 PM EST
Ronald W. Reagan Blamed Former President Jimmy Carter, To stay in
Office 2 Terms With Alzheimers, You Loved that Guy Huh ?
by jamesmac44 December 13, 2009 7:46 PM EST
And republicans had to put up with 8 years of democrats like you have
complaints similar to the ones you are referring to. So please, why
don't YOU stop whining?
by Omni-Present101 December 13, 2009 7:46 PM EST
Can Someone Tell Me how Many Times People like YOU make Off The Wall
Questions like Yours....
He's the President Of the USA...DUH
He's been President of the USA 11 1/2 Months and 0ver 40 million
people Watched his Afghanistan Decision to Increase More Troops.
If You can't Stand it, why in the Hell are You Watching 60 Minutes &
Tabulating How Many Damn Times President Obama has been on 60 Minutes.
Tells Me, You're Enthralled By President Obama's Appearences.
So much so You're Tabulating His Interviews.
Jeez Louise
by auntc3 December 13, 2009 7:45 PM EST
Yes, I am auntc3. That interview with the President was not an
interview at all ....it was an attach....you CBS I thought would have
more class then to down our president on national TV....very
disappointed in CBS....20/20. Dont for get the MESSS the President is
dealing with was created by the REPUBLICANS...and I for one think the
Presdent is doing a terrific job considering what the Republicans left
him with...this all happened 2 months before he got in office...and
guess what...I dont think that was a coincedence....no I do not.
by th9876 December 13, 2009 7:43 PM EST
Didn't read the article or watch the 60 minutes show because I no
longer believe a word Obama says. Just came here to say that he no
longer has my support.
by Youallareidiots December 13, 2009 7:54 PM EST
Oh my god. you among with millions of other idiot americans are why im
ashamed to live in this country.Will all of you stop fighting against
the president. He is the least corupt president weve had in a long
time. He is trying to do good. And if you cant stop the hate then go
in a storm cellar for the remainder of the presidency with your bible
and your Glenn Beck and stay away from me.
by Omni-Present101 December 13, 2009 7:55 PM EST
he Never Had Your Support. Just an Under Handed Slight on the
President, had he Pulled Troops Out of Afghanistan or Sent 100,000
More Troops, You'd Still Hate Him.
Cut the Bull, You're an Obama Hate Meister, just like Fox
News,Limbuagh,Hannity,Beck & Praeger.
by einsteins_dank December 13, 2009 7:41 PM EST
love how 60 minutes cut the teaser for this...
Reply to this comment by OnceFree December 13, 2009 7:54 PM EST
Wow, what has happened to 60 Minutes, I remember a "force of hard
hitting news" when I was grownig up. I haven't watched since all the
"Bush Bashing" began but DAMN- softball city with Pres. Obama- the
"Gate Crashers" as the final question after all the softballs- why is
this show still on the air? (can't we get that from "Extra"??? no
wonder our country is a mess- the media has quit investigating our
government- what a shame...
by prcauch December 13, 2009 7:40 PM EST
Is it possible for him to speak without lying? Doesn't he understand
that some of us aren't sycophantic lapdogs slurping the venom that
flows from his mouth?
Reply to this comment by Supersally December 13, 2009 7:39 PM EST
Follow the money the banking melt down wasn't caused by Wall Street.
Frank, Dodd and the rest of the gang should be ashamed.
by olyboy December 13, 2009 7:38 PM EST
Not too hard to manage. This guy has never done anything but fool you
into voting for him. The joke is on you.
by olyboy December 13, 2009 7:37 PM EST
This coming from a man who has never created a job or run a business.
I can't believe this guy and his lack of knowledge about what really
makes this country run. Where does he think the money came from to
fund he and his wifes scholarships so they could sit in the ivory
tower and pass judgement. I've known lots of "fat cat bankers" and
they work every waking hour of every day. This is unreal.
by fedupwithidiots09 December 13, 2009 8:11 PM EST
Why is President Obama helping idiots like you? These fat cats are
earning 20 million dollars as bonuses, and you think they make this
country what it is, are you nuts? What happened to the blue collar
workers? They are the ones that made this country.
Where were you when President Bush was spending Billions of american
dollars on Iraqis? Where were you?!?
by Supersally December 13, 2009 7:32 PM EST
Wow TARP money being paid back? You have to be kidding. That is like
me paying one credit card with another credit card. TARP money is
money we don't have. Wake up and pay attention.
by wyzguy11 December 13, 2009 7:26 PM EST
Good for President Obama!! While average working Americans such as
policemen, firefighters and teachers had their retirement savings
decimated by Wall St risk takers betting on things like "credit
default swaps" Wall St. execs walked off with billions in bonuses!!
by Supersally December 13, 2009 7:39 PM EST
Follow the money the banking melt down wasn't caused by Wall Street.
Frank, Dodd and the rest of the gang should be ashamed.
by zootsuithap December 13, 2009 7:24 PM EST
this potus is as dumb as a stump. you can't tax and spend your way out
of a recession. you can't heap all these taxes for these social
programs on the backs of the business of this country, without
breaking their back. American businesses provide the tax money these
people find so indspensible.
by mcdchi December 13, 2009 7:19 PM EST
Can someone list the number of appearances by a president on 60
Minutes. The Obama brand is overexposed.
by Omni-Present101 December 13, 2009 7:46 PM EST
Can Someone Tell Me how Many Times People like YOU make Off The Wall
Questions like Yours....
He's the President Of the USA...DUH
He's been President of the USA 11 1/2 Months and 0ver 40 million
people Watched his Afghanistan Decision to Increase More Troops.
If You can't Stand it, why in the Hell are You Watching 60 Minutes &
Tabulating How Many Damn Times President Obama has been on 60 Minutes.
Tells Me, You're Enthralled By President Obama's Appearences.
So much so You're Tabulating His Interviews.
Jeez Louise
by jaames530 December 13, 2009 7:05 PM EST
It was $600 MILLION!!
by jaames530 December 13, 2009 7:01 PM EST
Is 60 Minutes the now personal sponsor for this foolish little front
boy and his tripe? Can anyone really believe these are OBama's
policies? Follow the mopney. At the end of his cmpaign he had more
than $60 MILLION in his coffers, McCain had less than $10 million.
Great celebrity we have up there, worth every dime paid.
by jaames530 December 13, 2009 7:05 PM EST
It was $600 MILLION!!
by daffy64 December 13, 2009 7:55 PM EST
Uh..he had money in his coffers because most Americans wanted to see
him elected. And he won.
Why is that so amazing or hard to grasp?
by retirevet December 13, 2009 7:01 PM EST
What about the ROBS you?
by rgrwlco December 13, 2009 6:46 PM EST
For those of you who do not believe your president is free from
prejudice, LISTEN to his comments and analyze them.
For those of you who believe he is doing what is in the best interest
of the country, read history, specifically re. Ben Franklin and
Jefferson; what they said about tyranny.
by ken1dall December 13, 2009 5:45 PM EST
This "one termer" has forgotten (more than likely never knew) where
business and jobs that pay the taxes to support his hair-brained
social and entitlement programs come from. You shouldn't bite the hand
that feeds you.
Reply to this comment by retirevet December 13, 2009 7:01 PM EST
What about the ROBS you?
by zootsuithap December 13, 2009 5:24 PM EST
I'd say freedom; freedom of choice, of assembly, of speach. I'd say
this group in WDC is the most anti-American bunch of leftist loonies
there has ever been. Oh, and so-called C+ bush got better grades that
John "D Student" Kerry.
by zootsuithap December 13, 2009 5:05 PM EST
doofus- 2 of those years belong to pelosi and reed- everything tanked
when the dems took over...
by zootsuithap December 13, 2009 4:59 PM EST
okay, i'll take a different tack- this country has spent a lot of
energy over the last several decades to "change the color and gender"
of the corporate board room. Now that women and men of color have
broken through the glass ceiling, this ******** of a president wants
to cut their legs out from under them. Is that a better arguement?
by flsunjnky December 13, 2009 4:22 PM EST
Oh, some of you sound like a bunch of spoiled brats! The political
pendulum has swung back the other way and you don't like it. Too bad.
I had to put up with 8 years of failed policy and lies from the last
president, and none of you cared about that, so, live with it. Don't
worry, you'll get your turn again. This country is full of idiots like
you, and the pendulum will swing back to your liking once more. Quit
whining.
by zootsuithap December 13, 2009 5:05 PM EST
doofus- 2 of those years belong to pelosi and reed- everything tanked
when the dems took over...
by jamesmac44 December 13, 2009 7:46 PM EST
And republicans had to put up with 8 years of democrats like you have
complaints similar to the ones you are referring to. So please, why
don't YOU stop whining?
by tipperarynyc December 13, 2009 7:52 PM EST
lol..I don't think the idiot has left the white house...1 year ago he
promised our troops would be home ,we would have no more war, debt
etc.can't blame Bush no more ....he's 1 FULL year in office..I think
we are the idiots ..he's traveling with the family on T.V. every turn
[alas with no answers] WHY ..stay home and take care of your
country ..it's nice to have Air force 1 at your disposal
by Mikzy December 13, 2009 1:20 PM EST
I absolutely agree with you. Every time there is something about
Obama, albeit, an article or video people simply complain. They talk
as if this problem started on January 20,2009. Our problems have been
building for years and the people responsible aren't politicians it's
the people. The people who always want simple solutions the every
problem we have. The people who are too arrogant or as you put it
"emotionally" compromised to make sound decisions. What's funny is
Dick Cheney is popular among conservatives. This is funny because in
2001 Dick Cheney is quoted by the former Treasury Secretary as saying
"deficits don't matter". I'm convinced that it's not the audacity of
this man's policies that ignite such passion from people, but the
audacity of this man's existence as President. Whether you voted for
him or not give his policies some time to bear out before you make
your dooms-day predictions.
by LiftingSkirts December 13, 2009 1:19 PM EST
I feel your 'reverse discrimination' concerns...but you really are
barking up the wrong dead horse.
by LiftingSkirts December 13, 2009 1:18 PM EST
Godangit you miss the point, and your protest takes eyes off of the
ball. Who cares what Obama called them? They are not all white males
either. What a dumb protest.
by democracy1 December 13, 2009 11:56 AM EST
The depth of YOUR ignorance is revealed with every statement you make.
Bankers make money by taking risks? Historically, those risks were
VERY small (bankers were considered to be financially conservative).
It has only been in the past few decades after deregulation that
bankers have taken on higher risks (for their OWN short-term personal
benefit) which have proved to be disastrous for our overall financial
security as a country.
As to repayment and bonuses: If these institutions are able to pay the
money back so quickly and still give their employees outrageous
bonuses, doesn't that beg the question of how real their "problems"
were to begin with? Obama is not "complaining about the repayment" so
much as he is questioning how dire their situation was to begin with
that they needed to take taxpayer money.
And your comments on "black" and "Rezco" show that you have a rather
obvious bias.
by zootsuithap December 13, 2009 11:44 AM EST
to say the NBA is 90% is racist, or merely a fact. Or, are you racist
because you don't think white folks can play bakat bal?
by zootsuithap December 13, 2009 8:29 AM EST
I'd say racist and sexist, because "fat cat" is a codeword for "rich
white men." Mr. Obama, you are a pathetic racist and sexist person,
and should go back to your corrupt cess-pool of a City, Chicago, Il.
by LiftingSkirts December 13, 2009 1:18 PM EST
Godangit you miss the point, and your protest takes eyes off of the
ball. Who cares what Obama called them? They are not all white males
either. What a dumb protest.
by zootsuithap December 13, 2009 8:09 AM EST
I want to personally take this president to task for making such an
openly blatent racist remark. I mean, really, why not just say he
hates "successful rich white males." He's not upset at the bucks tiger
woods takes home. Those monies could pay for gobs of health
insurance....aren't most CEOs in this country white men?
by LiftingSkirts December 13, 2009 1:19 PM EST
I feel your 'reverse discrimination' concerns...but you really are
barking up the wrong dead horse.
by suenaustin December 13, 2009 3:40 AM EST
I love all the posters here who are convinced they are more
intelligent than the POTUS. I mean, ABSOLUTELY convinced!!
by zootsuithap December 13, 2009 7:24 PM EST
this potus is as dumb as a stump. you can't tax and spend your way out
of a recession. you can't heap all these taxes for these social
programs on the backs of the business of this country, without
breaking their back. American businesses provide the tax money these
people find so indspensible.
by olyboy December 13, 2009 7:38 PM EST
Not too hard to manage. This guy has never done anything but fool you
into voting for him. The joke is on you.
by jethro1859 December 12, 2009 10:35 PM EST
Amazing! People that are neither political scientists or economists,
social scientists, etc., so full of insight as to what America needs,
so certain from their arm-chair of how to solve all of America's
latest challenges. It's sad. And where were these people babbling on
about wasting tax-payers money as a president who was drunk a good
chunk of his adult life, who held a C + average, started a war in
Iraq--based on a lie--that cost tax payers trillions? Big brother?
That's only possible with a nation as ego-centric, ignorant, and
gullible as the United States. Read Westen: "The results are
unequivocal that when the outcomes of political decisions have strong
emotional implications and the data leave the slightest room for
artistic license, reason plays virtually no role in the decision
making of the average citizen" (112). Unless it's possible to actually
falisfy your views--unless it is possible that Obama might be right on
occasion and you might be wrong--then your views are merely
confirmation bias. Dogma.
Mikzy December 13, 2009 1:20 PM EST
I absolutely agree with you. Every time there is something about
Obama, albeit, an article or video people simply complain. They talk
as if this problem started on January 20,2009. Our problems have been
building for years and the people responsible aren't politicians it's
the people. The people who always want simple solutions the every
problem we have. The people who are too arrogant or as you put it
"emotionally" compromised to make sound decisions. What's funny is
Dick Cheney is popular among conservatives. This is funny because in
2001 Dick Cheney is quoted by the former Treasury Secretary as saying
"deficits don't matter". I'm convinced that it's not the audacity of
this man's policies that ignite such passion from people, but the
audacity of this man's existence as President. Whether you voted for
him or not give his policies some time to bear out before you make
your dooms-day predictions.
by zootsuithap December 13, 2009 5:24 PM EST
I'd say freedom; freedom of choice, of assembly, of speach. I'd say
this group in WDC is the most anti-American bunch of leftist loonies
there has ever been. Oh, and so-called C+ bush got better grades that
John "D Student" Kerry.
by bigboy8681 December 12, 2009 8:52 PM EST
I swear you people are so freaking stupid you are never happy....all
you do is complain, whine, and just being big babies. The man is
trying to fix things and all you can do is bicker on what he is doing
wrong. Instead of criticism lets just see what will happen, I mean the
country is so far in debt anyway lets just see what happens and give
him a chance. Alot of Americans never wanted him anyway so since he is
here give him a chance its only been 11 months, cut him some slack
by genepoolbooboo December 12, 2009 4:08 PM EST
Pres. Lincoln, propped up in his present state, would command more
respect on merits of honesty and be a better pres than the one with
the anti-American Marxist beliefs. Long live Freedom and Liberty for
all our brothers and sisters. You can keep your Hoax and Chains.
by GovernmentIsTheProblem December 12, 2009 1:56 PM EST
Obama sure does love to blame-shift doesn't he?
Remind me again, WHO was it who spent by far the most money by one
president in any single year ever? And paid off countless fat cat
cronies and political supporters in the process?
Did it ever occur to Obama that he has no control over companies that
paid off TARP funds? And that maybe companies that paid off TARP funds
have turned around and the reason was because they attracted top
talent who were able to do so by the incentive of bonuses? His
Socialist Pay Czar can't say a thing about what compensation companies
give who no longer owe the government.
De-fund your own political fat-cat cronies, whom you paid richly with
taxpayer stimulus funds, Obama, first, before you come crying to the
media.
by Zerosum53 December 12, 2009 12:33 PM EST
"I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers
on Wall Street," Obama says.
For crying out loud, we know that! You ran so that the corrupt, fat
cats Pelosi, Dodd, Frank, etal, and least of all, YOU! can get rich
off the backs of your slavish taxpayers.
by smilnjackw December 12, 2009 12:27 PM EST
Maybe its time Senators start listening to how their constitutents
feel about things instead of joe obiden, obama, reid or pelosi. It is
time to take the government back to the people instead a bunch of FAT
CAT POLITICANS padding their own pockets and criticizing and running
off leaders in business that know how to run a company rather then a
bunch of FAT CAT GOVERNMENT ACORN DOLES that caused 90% of the ACORN-
obama, dodd,schummmmer, reid, pelosi ddod, frank housing banking
scandal that raped the taxpayers that never managed a thing in their
life and lived off the government all their life..
by beladnj December 12, 2009 12:23 PM EST
What do you call the overhead that your friendly local, state and
federal governments take from you every day?
The best way to deal with the 'fat cats' on Wall Street is to not
participate. Oh, I get it, its ok for you to make a profit from your
investments, but its not ok for those providing the service to make a
profit.
You need to find a country that will take care of you, not turn this
country into one.
by obamao December 12, 2009 11:39 AM EST
Oh, you are pathetic. Lincoln? Really? Keep the blinders on. What a
fool you are.
by obamao December 12, 2009 11:36 AM EST
He is the biggest liar. He thinks if he says something, we will
believe it, then he can turn around and do the opposite of what he
says. He has been holding hands with Goldman Sachs since he has been
in office. There is a revolving door between the people that work for
him and Goldman Sachs. I know he thinks he is so smart and that people
will never question his hypocrisy. Reporters won't because they are
stupid. But many people know what he is doing.
Reply to this comment by Tigerbythetail December 12, 2009 11:19 AM
EST
Liar!
by Vet_Turner December 12, 2009 10:54 AM EST
Obama was elected to fix that mess. The fact that the bankers take 2
to 3% right off the top of everything we make in the stock market is
disgusting. They call it overhead, I'll call it stealing.
by beladnj December 12, 2009 12:23 PM EST
What do you call the overhead that your friendly local, state and
federal governments take from you every day?
The best way to deal with the 'fat cats' on Wall Street is to not
participate. Oh, I get it, its ok for you to make a profit from your
investments, but its not ok for those providing the service to make a
profit.
You need to find a country that will take care of you, not turn this
country into one.
by donclampett2 December 12, 2009 10:33 AM EST
"Fat Cat" Obama needs to quit being a petty blame-gamer and get on
with the job he was elected to do. Mr. O: Quit and worrying about CEO
wages and fix your own government's screw-ups, like reckless spending,
the Fannie and Freddie cadaver twins, and SEC screw-ups. Quit wasting
time on huge new government takeovers while other spending programs
are going bust and get focused on promoting a healthy economy. Quit
the big government give-a-ways and gimmicks and concentrate on
promoting economic stability.
by Michaels_Sword December 12, 2009 6:17 AM EST
Some of these comments about President Obama are rather amusing. They
remind me of similar comments made years ago through the print media
during another President's term in office... but his name was Lincoln
as I recall.
by obamao December 12, 2009 11:39 AM EST
Oh, you are pathetic. Lincoln? Really? Keep the blinders on. What a
fool you are.
by genepoolbooboo December 12, 2009 4:08 PM EST
Pres. Lincoln, propped up in his present state, would command more
respect on merits of honesty and be a better pres than the one with
the anti-American Marxist beliefs. Long live Freedom and Liberty for
all our brothers and sisters. You can keep your Hoax and Chains.
by Moishie December 12, 2009 4:09 AM EST
The depth of Obama's ignorance is revealed with every statement he
makes. Bush was bad, but Obama is proving just how little value an
elite education has when coupled with arrogance and disdain. 'Bankers'
make money by taking risks and providing value, virtues in capitalism.
That TARP money is being repaid should be appreciated and highlighted.
Complaining about repayment suggests the Great One is motivated by
resentment rather than concern for the economy. Perhaps it would be
better if more of the bankers were black or had the last name Rezko.
One suspects Obama would then be happier about it all.
by democracy1 December 13, 2009 11:56 AM EST
The depth of YOUR ignorance is revealed with every statement you make.
Bankers make money by taking risks? Historically, those risks were
VERY small (bankers were considered to be financially conservative).
It has only been in the past few decades after deregulation that
bankers have taken on higher risks (for their OWN short-term personal
benefit) which have proved to be disastrous for our overall financial
security as a country.
As to repayment and bonuses: If these institutions are able to pay the
money back so quickly and still give their employees outrageous
bonuses, doesn't that beg the question of how real their "problems"
were to begin with? Obama is not "complaining about the repayment" so
much as he is questioning how dire their situation was to begin with
that they needed to take taxpayer money.
And your comments on "black" and "Rezco" show that you have a rather
obvious bias.
by Supersally December 13, 2009 7:32 PM EST
Wow TARP money being paid back? You have to be kidding. That is like
me paying one credit card with another credit card. TARP money is
money we don't have. Wake up and pay attention.
by trhunnicutt December 12, 2009 2:24 AM EST
Vet_Turner... He has been consistent. In his primetime address, he
said that we would "BEGIN" withdrawal in July 2011, and like in Iraq
the withdrawal would "be based on conditions on the ground.".
That's not false, and is exactly what Clinton, Gates, and McCrystal
have said.
People sometimes either don't hear, or chose to hear what they want to
hear... for instance, saying that Obama broke a campaign promise to
"get all troops home". Not true. He always said that he was going to
add boots on the ground in Afghanistan "2 battalions" as soon as I
take office.
by doctorrainer December 12, 2009 1:36 AM EST
The answer to revitalize the economy lies within the article, "Can
President Obama Regain His Presidency" by Robert Rainer, MD
click below
http://searchwarp.com/swa559805-Can-President-Obama-Regain-His-Presidency.htm
by apachekid December 11, 2009 11:25 PM EST
Obama Irked By "Fat Cat Bankers" ************************
As well as Obama's & his Elite Wealthy out of touch Congress. The
record congressional pay raises Obama signed last January. The Fat Cat
Elite & Obama don't seem to understand that Senior Citizens will not
get any SS increases this year or next to pay for the Record Food &
Energy Prices as they go out of sight on his watch. What a jerk! Its
enough to irk this Senior Citizen. Bushness as usual.
by r9119111 December 11, 2009 4:02 PM EST
by zootsuithap December 11, 2009 3:04 PM EST
----------
zootsuithap: I'm glad you are not the president. America would be
there forever. I'd vote for Obama all over again. Thank you.
zootsuithap December 11, 2009 3:07 PM EST
I noticed John Stossel is joining FOX- wonder why they are leaving
ABC, NBC, and CBS in droves...oh, yeah, I forgot, it's only about the
money the neocons are feeding into FOX. Sorry, I keep forgetting the
NEOCONS are EVERYWHERE...
Reply to this comment by zootsuithap December 11, 2009 3:04 PM EST
a "war of necessity" one that "you can't afford to lose" is one where
you apply all the resources you have for as long as it takes to get
the job done. Did I mention 'bama was a liar?
by zootsuithap December 11, 2009 2:58 PM EST
so, this is the "war of necessity" one we "can't afford to lose?" But
one we can pull out of in 2011 win, lose, or draw, or whatever. What
leadership...
Reply to this comment by r9119111 December 11, 2009 8:33 AM EST
I'm sure there are powerful forces demanding that we stay in
Afghanistan for an unlimited amount of time. Those interests may be
willing to sacrifice American lives and fortune for their benefit.
Give credit to President Obama for taking the time to listen maturely
to all sides before making his decision. I give him credit for his
approach and support him fully. Thank you, President Obama for all
patriotic and courageous Americans.
Reply to this comment by WiseWidget December 11, 2009 4:26 AM EST
He tells each group he speaks to what they want to hear and is
counting on most people being too dumb to realize what he is doing.
Another way to put it is that he lies about everything. Just like Bush
II, Bush III is a liar. And if Bush II got away with it, why can't he
do the same thing? The older Bush got away with all of this and
experiences no consequences... It is business as usual with this con
artist.
Reply to this comment by Vet_Turner December 11, 2009 3:20 AM EST
Deadline is fine but it is false. He tells his primetime listeners one
thing and his staff tell another story. McCrystal telling us that
perhaps a few a very few soldiers will be coming out in July 2011. I
feel duped by this administration.
Reply to this comment by trhunnicutt December 12, 2009 2:24 AM EST
Vet_Turner... He has been consistent. In his primetime address, he
said that we would "BEGIN" withdrawal in July 2011, and like in Iraq
the withdrawal would "be based on conditions on the ground.".
That's not false, and is exactly what Clinton, Gates, and McCrystal
have said.
People sometimes either don't hear, or chose to hear what they want to
hear... for instance, saying that Obama broke a campaign promise to
"get all troops home". Not true. He always said that he was going to
add boots on the ground in Afghanistan "2 battalions" as soon as I
take office.
by SugarMtn December 10, 2009 10:29 AM EST
Hey BigSky - you wont be missed. why not give a chance to see what he
says before you make stupid comments like that. 60Minutes is the last
remaining outlet for intelligent conversation and interviews, we
should be lucky it exists.
by zootsuithap December 11, 2009 3:07 PM EST
I noticed John Stossel is joining FOX- wonder why they are leaving
ABC, NBC, and CBS in droves...oh, yeah, I forgot, it's only about the
money the neocons are feeding into FOX. Sorry, I keep forgetting the
NEOCONS are EVERYWHERE...
by kangakanga December 10, 2009 5:30 AM EST
yeah me too I think I will pass also. I keep looking at how BIG his
mouth is. What price a full size apple would'nt fit into his mouth.
by BigSky1970 December 9, 2009 7:37 PM EST
No doubt this will be a softball sucking-up interview, otherwise Obama
wouldn't have appeared, because Obama is too chicken to confront his
critics. I think I'll pass.
bademiyansubhanallah
Interviewer: Jayshree Bajoria, Staff Writer, CFR.org
December 14, 2009
President Barack Obama's strategy approving a U.S. troop surge in
Afghanistan called success there "inextricably linked to our
partnership with Pakistan." But the U.S.-Pakistan relationship is
riddled with problems. U.S. officials are concerned about terrorist
safe havens in Pakistan's border areas, and there are reports that the
United States may expand its covert airstrikes in the border region.
In Pakistan, there are concerns about U.S. plans to withdraw from the
region starting in 2011. Five independent Pakistani experts assess
Obama's strategy, explore the largely negative response in Pakistan,
and discuss the military and political pitfalls of the plan.
For journalist and author Ahmed Rashid and Asia Society fellow Hassan
Abbas, Obama's plan fails to address the question of India, Pakistan's
biggest security concern. Former Pakistani ambassador to the United
States Maleeha Lodhi warns that military escalation--particularly the
expansion of aerial strikes in Pakistan--could inflame an already
fragile security situation. Hasan-Askari Rizvi, a political analyst,
and Shuja Nawaz, director of the South Asia Center at the Atlantic
Council in Washington, cite concerns in Islamabad that there is no
plan for Pakistan after U.S. forces quit Afghanistan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ahmed Rashid, Journalist and Author, Lahore
President Obama mentioned Pakistan at least twenty-five times in his
speech but failed to offer any clue as to what the U.S. political
strategy will be. A publicly stated political strategy that tries to
persuade Pakistan's military to deal with the Afghan Taliban on its
soil is essential if the U.S. deadline of July 2011 for the start of
its troop pullout from Afghanistan is to be met.
Instead, there have been a series of media leaks that relate to what
military strategy the United States will pursue, such as expanding the
drone missile attacks to Balochistan, where the Afghan Taliban
leadership is based; extending CIA activities across Pakistan; and
even the possibility of U.S. Special Forces being used inside Pakistan
with or without permission of the government. Some of these actions
could fuel anti-Western sentiments in Pakistan and endanger the
elected civilian government.
These kinds of U.S. pressures may be in the cards, along with
sweeteners, such as the promise of the $ 1.5 billion aid package a
year for the next five years and $ 2 billion a year for the army.
Still, all this does not constitute a political strategy or one that
addresses at least some of Pakistan's security concerns--of which the
largest is India.
"The United States needs to articulate a political strategy that draws
India and Pakistan in with its plans and, despite Indian objections,
puts pressure on New Delhi to be more accommodating toward Pakistan."–
Ahmed Rashid
Pakistan is probably the only U.S. ally not to have endorsed the Obama
plan. That is because the Pakistan military sees things differently:
that the United States will abandon the region after 2011; [that] it
is better to keep the Afghan Taliban as a reserve to recapture Kabul
rather than allow a civil war to develop on Pakistan's doorstep; and
that the Indian presence must at all costs be eliminated from
Afghanistan--all this while maintaining a modicum of a relationship
with the United States.
The Pakistani army is wrong on several counts, not least that the
Afghan Taliban will be unacceptable to most Afghans, including the
Pashtun population from where they draw their major support, or to
Afghanistan's other neighbors, who in the event of the above scenario
will gang up to support non-Pashtun warlords and plunge Afghanistan
into a new civil war. As in the 1990s, Pakistan will be left isolated
and accused of abetting Islamic extremism in the region.
The United States needs to articulate a political strategy that draws
India and Pakistan in with its plans and, despite Indian objections,
puts pressure on New Delhi to be more accommodating toward Pakistan,
while at the same time the United States bolsters support for the
elected government in Pakistan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hassan Abbas, Fellow, Asia Society; Senior Advisor, Belfer Center for
Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
The outcome of [the] Obama administration's stretched Afghanistan
policy review process was anxiously awaited not only in the United
States but in Islamabad. Pakistan was complaining for a while that the
United States was not sharing its Afghanistan strategy and long-term
plan with them. A series of recent visits from high-level U.S.
officials to Islamabad were meant to dispel this impression and offer
an expanded partnership. In response, Pakistan has cautiously welcomed
the new plan, but in reality it is still trying to decipher it fully.
Given how the senior U.S. officials of the State and Defense
Departments are daily adding new meanings to Obama's words through
their "creative interpretations," the Pakistani government cannot be
blamed if [it] appear[s] to be slow in understanding the real intent
and scope of the new strategy.
"Ideally, India and Pakistan should join hands to stabilize
Afghanistan but someone needs to facilitate that kind of an
arrangement. Obama has the stature, potential, and vision to play that
role."—Hassan Abbas
Pakistan is facing a terrifying wave of terrorist attacks in its major
cities--targeting ordinary people as well as security personnel and
their families. Widening political rifts and an assertive judiciary
can change the country's political landscape quite quickly. In this
scenario, no one in Pakistani power corridors is expected to respond
positively to ultimatums and tough demands. President Obama gauged
this situation very well and gave a firm but friendly message to
Pakistan, basically saying, "We need you, and success of our policy is
dependent on your unflinching cooperation." Long-term U.S. commitment
to Pakistan is offered if this works out.
Pakistan, however, was also expecting a deal that includes guarantees
that India's security-related role in Afghanistan will be reduced.
Unless there is some behind-the- scene understanding on this count,
Pakistan may not be able to live up to Obama's expectations. Ideally,
India and Pakistan should join hands to stabilize Afghanistan, but
someone needs to facilitate that kind of an arrangement. Obama has the
stature, potential, and vision to play that role.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maleeha Lodhi, Former Pakistani Ambassador to the United States and
Britain
President Barack Obama's speech announced a military strategy to turn
the tide in Afghanistan but no political plan. The absence--thus far--
of a political approach to underpin the military effort makes the new
strategy deeply flawed. Military escalation in Afghanistan and the
expansion of aerial strikes in Pakistan is dangerous for Pakistan,
which is already confronted with mounting security challenges, a
consequence, not a cause, of the insurgency in Afghanistan.
There is no guarantee that dispatching more soldiers will be any more
successful in defeating the Taliban than previous troop surges. The
reliance on military means in Obama's plan is accompanied by near
silence on a political strategy. This assumes that a military solution
can be successfully applied to Afghanistan, without addressing the
political causes of the growing insurgency, especially Pashtun
alienation.
"Military escalation in Afghanistan and the expansion of aerial
strikes in Pakistan is dangerous for Pakistan, which is already
confronted with mounting security challenges, a consequence, not a
cause, of the insurgency in Afghanistan."—Maleeha Lodhi
Obama's strategy poses two especially tough challenges for Islamabad.
The first is that the public consensus against militancy forged with
so much difficulty can unravel with the expansion of the war. This is
especially so with the anticipated widening of the "covert war"'
involving drone-launched missile attacks in the country's tribal areas
and beyond. This will not just inflame opinion in Pakistan but also
unite militants of different stripes, compounding a fragile security
situation.
Second, Washington's demands on Pakistan to play an active role in its
hammer and anvil strategy will stretch the capability of Pakistan's
army, already engaged in operations in a number of tribal areas.
Pushing Pakistan into multiple military engagements can undercut its
own counter-militancy efforts and jeopardize recent gains.
Military escalation on its border (two additional U.S. brigades are
being deployed in southern and one in eastern Afghanistan) is fraught
with four more risks for Pakistan.
•It could produce a spillover of militants and al-Qaeda fighters into
Pakistan and an arms flow across the border.
•It will enhance the vulnerability of U.S.-NATO ground supply routes
through the country as supply needs will increase exponentially.
Protecting these supply lines will overstretch Pakistani forces, at
present engaged in quashing the Pakistani Taliban.
•The surge could also lead to an influx of more Afghan refugees, which
can be especially destabilizing for Balochistan.
•It could also provoke a spike in violent reprisals in mainland
Pakistan already being rocked by the bloody backlash from the military
operations.
President Obama has described the partnership with Pakistan as being
"inextricably linked" to success in Afghanistan. Unless this critical
partner's doubts and concerns about the new plan are allayed and
Washington is prepared to modify its strategy accordingly, the
relationship will only run into more problems.
Any expanded CIA role in Pakistan (especially in terms of drone
strikes in Balochistan and ground assaults in Federally Administered
Tribal Areas/North West Frontier Province), as speculated in [the]
media, will be disastrous for the U.S.-Pakistan relations besides
creating further rifts between the civil and military leadership in
the country.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hasan-Askari Rizvi, Independent political and defense analyst,
Pakistan
The government of Pakistan is favorably disposed toward the U.S.
decision to increase its military presence in Afghanistan and its
determination to fight terrorism. Pakistan's civilian and military
authorities are expected to accept the U.S. offer of an expanded
strategic partnership.
However, a number of issues give rise to skepticism in Pakistan about
the new U.S. policy on Afghanistan. Pakistan will be monitoring
closely the U.S. efforts for building up governance capacity of the
Kabul government and the enhancement of professional capacity of the
Afghanistan National Army and the police. This also calls for
overcoming sharp ethnic imbalance in the Afghan army, especially in
the higher echelons. If this objective is not fully achieved, the post-
U.S. Afghanistan will continue to face internal turmoil with negative
fallout on the already troubled Pakistani tribal areas, which will in
turn fuel instability in Afghanistan.
Pakistan's concern pertains to the situation the day after the United
States quits Afghanistan, perhaps the region. If Afghanistan's
internal situation remains perturbed, should Pakistan seek friends
from among the competing players in and around Afghanistan?
"Pakistan's concern pertains to the situation the day after the United
States quits Afghanistan, perhaps the region. If Afghanistan's
internal situation remains perturbed, should Pakistan seek friends
from among the competing players in and around Afghanistan?"—Hasan-
Askari Rizvi
Pakistan's security authorities are perturbed by President Barack
Obama's assertion about the "safe-haven" for the al-Qaeda and its
affiliated groups in Pakistan's tribal areas and the terrorist
"threats" to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.
Will the United States treat Afghanistan, Pakistan's tribal areas, and
parts of Balochistan adjacent to Afghanistan as a single war zone if
Pakistan is unwilling or unable to satisfy the United States on the
safe-haven issue and does not take action against the Taliban groups
identified by the United States? These issues can become more serious
if the Afghan Taliban slip into Pakistan's tribal areas to save
themselves from stepped-up U.S. military operations. Will the United
States increase drone aircraft attacks or send its special forces into
Pakistani tribal areas or both?
The United States needs to weigh the uncertain gains of unilateral
military operations in Pakistani territory against its highly negative
consequences for Pakistan's domestic political context including civil-
military relations. This is likely to swell anti-U.S sentiment and
threaten its fragile democratic political order, which is already
under pressure due to terrorist attacks in urban centers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shuja Nawaz, Director, South Asia Center, Atlantic Council
"After eighteen months, our troops will begin to come home." With that
crisp sentence in his West Point speech, President Barack Obama
created a talking point for his opponents and managed to confound his
allies halfway across the globe. These ten words are quite clear. The
United States plans to start pulling out of Afghanistan in less than
two years. That is all the Taliban wanted to know. That is all the
Pakistanis understood. Will Afghanistan descend into turmoil again; as
rivals among the Taliban alliance and even the regional warlords that
helped reelect President Hamid Karzai battle for power in the wake of
the U.S. pullout?
No amount of clarifications by the presidential team that followed
helped dispel the notion that the United States was intent on leaving
again and in short order. The best hope now is the war plan of the
general in the field. General Stanley McChrystal and his surge will
need to break the back of the insurgency in Helmand and Kandahar,
dislocate the Taliban, and turn them away from potential refuge in
Pakistan. Meanwhile across the border, the Pakistani forces will
continue their internal battle against their homegrown Taliban
insurgency, unready to open a new front against the Afghan Taliban.
This reluctance will likely provoke private and public U.S. pressure
for Pakistan to "do more" or else risk U.S. drone attacks into
Balochistan and heightened strikes inside the Federally Administered
Tribal Area. If this happens, the U.S.-Pakistan relationship may be
heading for a train wreck.
"Pakistan could play a key role in helping fracture the Afghan Taliban
alliance by persuading the Haqqani group to join the government in
Kabul or send surrogates instead."—Shuja Nawaz
Yet, there is hope that the surge will buy the allies time and space
to deal with the Taliban from a position of strength with the language
of war, a language that the Pashtuns understand. If the civilians then
do their job and restore security and governance, with help from the
Afghan forces and local tribal militias, then the president could eke
out success and begin to "reintegrate" the non-ideological supporters
of the Taliban in the territory cleared by the surge. Pakistan could
play a key role in helping fracture the Afghan Taliban alliance by
persuading the Haqqani group to join the government in Kabul or send
surrogates instead. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar has already been reported
willing to strike a deal with Karzai. That would isolate Mullah Omar
and make it harder for him to go it alone against the allies.
Today, the allies need to build the willing support of Pakistan and
other regional players to help Afghanistan stand on its own feet. If
they do not complete the job they began in Afghanistan, the world will
be left less safe than it was when they went into the region in 2001.
Weigh in on this issue by emailing CFR.org.
bademiyansubhanallah
Press Release: (2009) 197
Statement by the NATO Secretary General on the bombing in Kabul
On behalf of NATO, I condemn the suicide bombing that was carried out
in Kabul this morning, which has killed and injured many civilians.
This attack demonstrates, once again, that the militants have no
regard for the lives of innocent Afghans.
I also condemn Monday's attacks on the Afghan police, in which 16
officers lost their lives; through this kind of violence, which the
Taliban carries out almost daily, the militants are making it very
clear that they will resort to any form of terrorism to try to stop
the Afghan people from building a safer future. NATO will continue to
help the Afghan people secure their own country against terrorism.
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_60153.htm?mode=pressrelease
bademiyansubhanallah
www.chinaview.cn 2009-12-16 15:39:16
KABUL, Dec. 16 (Xinhua) -- Five policemen including an officer
were killed as a roadside bomb struck their van in western Herat
province, police spokesman in west Afghanistan Abdul Rauf Ahmadi said
Wednesday.
"The gruesome incident occurred Tuesday night when the police were
on routine duty as a result five policemen including the police chief
of Kushk-e-Rubatsangi were killed," Ahmadi told Xinhua.
One more policeman was injured in the blast, he added.
He put the attack on Taliban militants, saying the militants by
carrying out subversive activities, attempt to disrupt peace and
stability in the province.
Three more suicide attacks and roadside bombings left over a dozen
people dead and injured more than 50 others in the war-torn
Afghanistan on Tuesday.
Editor: Wang Guanqun
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-12/16/content_12656623.htm
bademiyansubhanallah
By H.D.S. Greenway
December 16, 2009
ONE OF THE FIRST objectives of President Obama’s surge in Afghanistan
will be to secure the city of Kandahar, which the Taliban threaten,
and to reinforce allied troops fighting in Helmand Province - both
names that Americans have had to learn in the lexicon of our latest
war.
They were names that Russians also had to learn when they tried their
hand at subduing the tribesmen of that hostile land. When the Russians
invaded 30 years ago, the entire population of Kandahar took to the
streets, and a great wailing ensued as they prayed to Allah to turn
back the invader. And in time, with a little help from “Holy Warrior’’
tribesmen, Pakistani intelligence, and the CIA, Allah did just that.
One hundred and forty years earlier, Kandahar was the first stop for
the British “Army of the Indus’’ during Britain’s first Afghan War. It
was an easy conquest, but by January 1842, the British position had
become untenable, and the entire army was wiped out when the 44th
Regiment of Foot made its last stand in the passes between Kabul and
the Khyber. Only one man survived death or capture. The British then
sent what they called the “Army of Retribution’’ to settle the score.
In 1880, during the Second Afghan War, it was the 55th Regiment of
Foot that made a last stand near the Helmand River, with few survivors
staggering back to a besieged Kandahar. British school children
learned of General Frederick, later Lord Roberts of Kandahar, the
Stanley McChrystal of his time, who executed a storied forced march
from Kabul to relieve the besieged city.
There would be a third Anglo-Afghan War in 1919, but by then there
were airplanes to bomb the Afghans. And then there were the constant
campaigns in places such as Swat, and Waziristan, Northwest Frontier -
names that Americans have also had to learn. Today Pakistani soldiers
fight over the same ground where their great-great-grandfathers fought
for the British when Pakistan was a part of India.
The enemy, then as now, always rallied to the reliable call of
“jihad’’ against the infidel invaders no matter who they were. Of all
the tribes, those of the Pashtuns were the most feared.
The motives for fighting in Afghanistan were fear, prestige, and
retribution. The British feared Russian expansion, and always sought
to put their man on the throne to do Britain’s bidding. Retribution
always followed military setbacks, and national prestige was used as
the reason to fight on. British control over Afghanistan was thought
necessary for the defense of India.
Russia followed the same scenario, fearing that if Afghanistan’s pro-
Communist government should fail, it would endanger Russia’s Muslim
regions.
The United States invaded Afghanistan out of fear of Al Qaeda, and
retribution for 9/11. And today you often hear the national prestige
argument that we cannot let the Holy Warriors believe they can defeat
a second superpower. More and more, America’s Afghan policy is tied
into protecting the stability of Pakistan, once part of British India.
Nineteenth century Britain’s “Forward Policy,’’ which basically meant
preventive war in defense of the realm, sounded very much like George
W. Bush’s preventive war doctrine. The Forward Policy would wax when
Benjamin Disraeli’s Conservative Party was in power, and wane when
William Gladstone’s Liberals took power. The imperial urge, so
reminiscent of what the neoconservatives had to say in Bush’s day, was
always stronger among conservatives in 19th-century Britain.
Yet liberals, too, would stumble into imperial misadventure, and
Britain’s Afghan policy vacillated between what the author John
Griffiths called “ half-hearted imperialists and ill-informed
liberals.’’
One can sympathize with President Obama, whose views are more aligned
with Gladstone’s than Disraeli’s, when he rails against the faults and
weaknesses of our man in Kabul, Hamid Karzai. The British, and the
Russians too, always found it frustrating when the Afghans they put in
power did not act more like Britons, or Russians.
One can sympathize, too, with Obama when he says he wants to “finish
the job.’’ The trouble is that, in Afghanistan, it is comparatively
easily to send in more troops, but the job never seems to stay
finished.
H.D.S. Greenway’s column appears regularly in the Globe.
© Copyright 2009 Globe Newspaper Company.
Sid Harth
By DEB RIECHMANN (AP) – 1 hour ago
KABUL — The Taliban have announced they will release a new video of a
U.S. soldier captured in Afghanistan, a U.S-based terrorism monitoring
group said Wednesday.
SITE Intelligence Group, a U.S.-based terrorist tracking organization,
said the media arm of the Afghan Taliban made the announcement
Wednesday on their Web site.
The video is said to be titled, "One of Their People Testified." The
Taliban did not name the American.
The only U.S. soldier known to be in captivity is Pfc. Bowe Bergdahl
of Hailey, Idaho, who disappeared more than five months ago in
Afghanistan.
Bergdahl, 23, was captured June 30 in the eastern province of Paktika
province near the Pakistan border. His Taliban captors released a
propaganda video of him about two weeks later. In the July 19 video,
Bergdahl appeared downcast and frightened. No subsequent videos have
been released.
U.S. military officials have searched for Bergdahl, but it is not
publicly known whether he is even being held in Afghanistan or
neighboring Pakistan.
Pakistan is off-limits to the thousands of U.S. forces based in
Afghanistan. When militants captured a reporter for The New York Times
in a dangerous region of Afghanistan last year, he was transported to
Pakistan and held for months there. The reporter, David Rohde,
eventually escaped.
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h4BmraGuqNR2qH8KBMi5Gp3CHPEQD9CKFSNO1
bademiyansubhanallah
Similar stories:
•Pakistan court starts hearing case against amnesty
Pakistan court starts hearing case against amnestyPakistan's Supreme
Court began hearing petitions Monday against an expired amnesty that
had protected President Asif Ali Zardari and key allies from graft
charges, a case that could lead to legal challenges to the U.S.-backed
leader's rule.
A ruling against Zardari - whom opinion polls show to be unpopular -
risks political turmoil just as the Obama administration and other
Western allies want Pakistan to redouble its fight against al-Qaida
and the Taliban near the Afghan border.
The hearing in the federal capital came as a suicide bomber struck
outside a court building in the main northwest city of Peshawar,
killing 10 people and wounding 45 in a fiery reminder of the threat
militants pose to the nuclear-armed country.
•Pakistan court kills amnesty covering president
Pakistan court kills amnesty covering presidentPakistan's top court
struck down an amnesty Wednesday that had protected the president from
corruption charges, paving the way for challenges to his shaky rule
just as the U.S. wants Islamabad to step up its fight against Islamist
militants.
The main opposition party immediately called on President Asif Ali
Zardari to resign, adding to the political turmoil in this nuclear-
armed nation at a time of surging violence by the Taliban and al-
Qaida. The U.S-backed president already is deeply unpopular and under
pressure to give up much of his power.
The decision, which was widely expected, also leaves thousands of
other officials, including Cabinet ministers and bureaucrats loyal to
Zardari who had also been shielded by the amnesty, vulnerable to
reopened corruption and other criminal cases.
•Pakistan bombings kill 40 as government fights for survival
Pakistan bombings kill 40 as government fights for survivalMore than
40 Pakistanis were killed in bombings Monday in Lahore and Peshawar in
the latest evidence that religious extremists who threaten to re-
conquer Afghanistan also threaten the stability of Pakistan.
In the eastern city of Lahore, a twin bombing at a market killed at
least 34 and injured 109, according to senior local official Khusro
Pervaiz. The explosions touched off a big fire at the Moon market,
which women frequent, and security authorities feared more victims are
still buried under rubble. Many of the casualties were children.
In the northwestern city of Peshawar, police stopped an attacker
outside a court building, but he blew himself up and killed at least
10. In the past, the Pakistani Taliban and other Islamic extremist
groups had attacked military or police targets almost exclusively, but
more recent attacks have been directed at civilians in public places.
•Pakistani army intelligence is target of massive truck bomb
Pakistani army intelligence is target of massive truck bombAn
insurgent driving a truck laden with up to a ton of explosives
targeted an office of Pakistan's premier military intelligence agency
Tuesday, the latest assault in a terrorist rampage that's left 500
people dead since early October.
Tuesday's attack, which killed 12 people, was aimed at the office of
Inter-Services Intelligence in the city of Multan, in the south of
Punjab province. On Monday, a bomb tore through a market in Punjab's
provincial capital, Lahore, killing 49 people.
The small truck drove up to a checkpoint manned by police and the army
just before noon Tuesday in Multan, about 50 yards from the ISI
building. When challenged, a man climbed out of the cab and launched a
rocket-propelled grenade toward the security guards, according to
Mohammad Ali Gardezi, a senior local official. Police returned fire.
•Obama's Afghan plan represents high-stakes gamble
Obama's Afghan plan represents high-stakes gamblePresident Barack
Obama is holding an uncertain hand in his high-stakes gamble in the
fight against Islamic extremism in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Weak
partners in both countries, doubts about the speed of building up
Afghan security forces and allies reluctant to commit themselves
wholeheartedly to the battle all raise questions about the strategy.
If all goes well, U.S. troops can begin heading home in July 2011,
Obama said. The White House says Obama set this date to make sure
Afghan President Hamid Karzai's government knows it has limited time
to reform itself and take charge of security.
Yet nearly every step presents difficult challenges - problems that
festered over eight years of international neglect after the Bush
administration shifted its attention from Afghanistan to Iraq once the
U.S.-led invasion of 2001 had ousted the Taliban from power.
By SAEED SHAH
McClatchy Newspapers
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- Pakistan's Supreme Court Wednesday ruled
unconstitutional a decree that granted public officeholders a legal
amnesty from old corruption charges, a decision certain to disrupt
Pakistan's battle against Pakistani and Afghan Taliban and their al
Qaida allies.
The ruling is likely to revive corruption cases against scores of key
Pakistani politicians, including the country's president, its defense
minister and its interior minister.
Aides to President Asif Ali Zardari, a key U.S. ally, said the
president will stay on, but Interior Minister Rehman Malik and Defense
Minister Ahmed Mukhtar could be forced to resign.
Zardari is likely to be faced with a barrage of litigation for the
rest of his presidency, however.
Pakistan is critical to President Barack Obama's strategy to defeat
the Taliban in Afghanistan and disrupt al Qaida. Pakistan's military,
however, is reluctant to attack Afghan Taliban forces it's long
considered allies. A protracted court battle over corruption charges
is likely to weaken those who favor aggressive action.
The court was stinging in its verdict. It said that in addition to
Pakistani corruption charges, authorities must also pursue allegations
of corruption lodged in foreign jurisdictions. It repeatedly mentioned
Switzerland - a clear reference to a long-standing accusation of money
laundering against Zardari in Switzerland.
Zardari regards all the cases against him, which date back to the
1990s, as politically motivated. As president, he's shielded by
immunity, but the limits of that protection will now be tested in the
courts.
The Supreme Court was ruling on a challenge to the 2007 amnesty, known
as the National Reconciliation Ordinance, granted to politicians and
bureaucrats by then President Pervez Musharraf in a deal brokered by
the U.S. and British government so that exiled Pakistani leaders could
return to the country without the fear of prosecution.
The court ruled that the amnesty was illegal because it was
discriminatory, favoring a small category of people, while the rest of
the population was left to continue to fight out their cases in the
courts.
The amnesty "created a divide amongst ordinary citizens of Pakistan
and a class of alleged criminals who statedly have committed crimes of
murder, dacoity (robbery), rape, looting/plundering of money/resources
of this nation," the court ruled.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/AP/story/1385121.html