|
Refer to the
original White House press release as published by the Office of the
Press Secretary. |
|
White House Press Release - December 01, 2009
Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on the Way Forward in
Afghanistan and Pakistan - at the Eisenhower Hall Theatre, United
States Military Academy at West Point, West Point, New York. The
speech lasted from 8:01 P.M. EST to 8:35 P.M. EST. It was only
interrupted a few times for applause, as noted below. |
|
The copy below is provided for the convenient reference
of our visitors, along with comments. Note that we have previously
commented on proposals for an Afghanistan "surge
strategy" and many news stories related to
events in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The author of these comments served as a US Foreign
Service Officer in Pakistan during the first term of President Reagan,
after the Soviets had invaded Afghanistan during the tenure of Jimmy
Carter. It is certainly to be hoped that this new policy will be
successful, but it could be worse than Carter's.
Selected news stories
related to the speech (before and after) are repeated for reference
below. |
|
See Obama's Cairo speech and
Ghana speech, plus the Nobel
prize news and the weak response to the
fraudulent elections and protests in Iran as well as the
attacks on our intelligence capabilities. |
|
Speech |
Commentary |
| THE
PRESIDENT: 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's an extraordinary 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. |
Pending - see prior news comments below |
| To address these important issues, it's 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, 19 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 passengers
onboard 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 nothing. 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 U.N., 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's 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 the men and women in uniform.
(Applause.)
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've 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's been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an
under-developed economy, and insufficient security forces. |
First applause line - about the troops |
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 control additional swaths of
territory in Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and
devastating attacks of terrorism against the Pakistani people.
Now, 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. And that's why, shortly after taking
office, I approved a longstanding 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 efforts. |
|
Since
then, we've made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al
Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we've stepped up the
pressure on al Qaeda worldwide. 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's 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 fought in Afghanistan. Some of you will deploy there. As your
Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and
worthy of your service. And that's why, after the Afghan voting was
completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Now, 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 during this review
period. Instead, the review has allowed me to ask the hard questions,
and to explore all the different options, along with my national
security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and
our key partners. And 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 now 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
visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I've traveled 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 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. And 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. |
OBJECTIVES |
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'm announcing tonight will deploy in
the first part of 2010 -- the fastest possible pace -- so that they can
target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They'll
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. |
FIRST |
Because this is an international effort, I've asked that our commitment
be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided
additional troops, and we're 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. And 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.
But 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'll 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 United Nations, 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'll
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. |
SECOND |
| 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. 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're 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's why we need a strategy that works on
both sides of the border.
In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who've 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. |
THIRD |
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 interest, 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 Pakistan 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 there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me
briefly address a few of the more prominent arguments that I've 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're better off cutting
our losses and rapidly withdrawing. I believe this argument depends on 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. |
CONCERNS - FIRST |
|
Second, there are those who acknowledge that we can't leave Afghanistan
in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops
that we already 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. |
SECOND |
|
Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a time frame 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 can be achieved at a
reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests.
Furthermore, the absence of a time frame 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. |
FINAL |
| As
President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our
means, or our interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our
nation faces. I don't have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed,
I'm 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. We've failed to
appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy.
In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our neighbors and friends
are out of work and struggle to pay the bills. Too many Americans are
worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition
within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we can't simply
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 for the military
this year, and I'll 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's why our troop commitment in
Afghanistan cannot be open-ended -- because the nation that I'm most
interested in building is our own.
Now, 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, failed states, diffuse enemies. |
|
So as
a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end
wars and prevent conflict -- not just how we wage wars. We'll 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 can't count on military might alone. We have to invest in our
homeland security, because we can't 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. And that's why
I've 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'll have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the
challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I've 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. |
|
And
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's 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 source, the moral
source, of America’s authority.
Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of
our grandparents and great-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, and markets open,
and 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 -- 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. (Applause.)
|
Second applause line - defending freedom |
| As a
country, we're 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. And 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.
(Applause.) |
Third applause line - the sacrifice of troops |
| 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's
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.
(Applause.) |
Fourth applause line - need for unity |
| 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, as 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. (Applause.)
|
Fifth applause line - high hopes for America |
| Thank
you. God bless you. May God bless the United States of America.
(Applause.) Thank you very much. Thank
you. (Applause.) |
Double applause line - Hooray! It's over! |
|
News related to the
new Afghanistan surge strategy announced on December 1, 2009 |
|
December 7, 2009 -
Jobs, not Taliban, are the worry in Afghan town - Comment:
Reality check. Government is not the solution. It can't
sustainably replace the trade activity in this region. |
|
December 5, 2009 -
Lawmakers get little reaction to Obama's war plan - Comment:
Useful reminder that Barbara Lee (D-CA) voted against the war
in Afghanistan in 2001. Maybe people aren't calling because they
are too busy preparing to vote these members of Congress out of office.
For example, Paul Hare (D-IL) reports only 3 calls so far. Maybe
his constituents have finally figured out that it doesn't really matter
what they say to him. Waste of time. They just have to get
rid of him. We may want to support the troops, but that doesn't
extend to Obama and members of Congress. |
|
December 5, 2009 -
Little resistance on day 2 of US-Afghan offensive |
|
December 4, 2009 -
US Marines launch large offensive in Afghanistan |
|
December 4, 2009 -
Congress worries about Obama's plan for Pakistan - Comment:
Insult our friends and apologize to our enemies. What a plan!
Pakistan has actually been making good progress against the insurgents
this year under their new leadership, in case nobody in Congress has
noticed. They have been taking tough, unpopular decisions and
fighting the enemy despite the bloody consequences. Meanwhile, it
took Obama over 3 months to make a speech which really said nothing new,
and was mainly focused on domestic politics rather than defeating the
enemy. This article gives you a good idea why some members of
Congress really need to be targeted for defeat in 2010. |
|
December 3, 2009 -
Pakistan: We need more clarity on US plan - Comment: Don't
we all? Note that the Pakistani government has made a lot of
progress against the insurgents this year. |
|
December 3, 2009 - US Congress worries over Obama's
plan for Pakistan and another version
Congress worries about Obama's plan for Pakistan - Comment: More
posturing by Kerry.
Congress, Obama spar over paying for Afghan plan - Murtha and
others can play to their anti-war base, knowing that Republicans will
support the necessary funding for the troops.
AP Analysis: Afghanistan pullout date not definite - Dare we say
dithering again? If the goal is to put pressure on the Afghan
government to step up to the plate in the expectation that we will start
to leave in 2011, then it doesn't sound like much pressure at all.
More like wishful thinking or political cover for domestic purposes.
The exit strategy is to be ready to weasel out of whatever happens for
domestic political purposes. Take credit if it goes well, and
change strategy again if it doesn't. |
|
December 2, 2009 -
Rumsfeld Cries Foul on Obama Claim Troop Requests for Afghanistan Were
Denied - Comment: Too polite to shout "You lie!"
He's just calling for Congress to check the facts since Obama asserted
that troop requests by commanders had been repeatedly denied.
The West Point cadets had to applaud politely on cue and
try to stay awake or stifle yawns and appear respectful during the
speech, but Rumsfeld is under no such constraints now - like Cheney. |
|
December 2, 2009 -
Gates, Mullen & Clinton argue for new Afghan plan - Comment:
Note that the next strategy review and discussion of exit plans is
planned for December 2010 - which by a remarkable coincidence is right
after the 2010 elections. Why not start 3 months earlier to allow
time for thorough consideration of his strategy by voters? Does
anybody else notice the irony of Albania being the first country to
pledge support? It used to be one of the most hard-line communist
regimes.
Sec'y Clinton: Obama's Afghan policy right for US
Gates: 'Severe consequences' for Afghan failure
AP FACT CHECK: Obama skims over some Afghan realities - update:
tough realities
Joint Chiefs head: War strategy refines US focus
Gates: US cannot cede Afghanistan to Taliban |
|
December 2, 2009 -
Analysis: A war strategy with echoes of Bush - Comment:
This might be a good time to go back and take another look at this
Foreign Policy magazine article from Jan/Feb 2009 which addressed the
thoughts of Admiral Michael Mullen and General David Petraeus about the
war in Afghanistan at that time, and how it differed from the surge
strategy in Iraq as elaborated in the 2006 update to the Army Field
Manual.
Counterinsurgency Field Manual: Afghanistan Edition If you
want to read the 2006 manual, the Federation of American Scientists
website has
published a copy. |
|
December 1, 2009 -
Afghan official: US target for Afghan army too low |
|
December 1, 2009 -
President Obama telephones Pakistan's Zardari: statement |
|
December 1, 2009 -
Gibbs: Deployment to Afghan will be accelerated - Comment: The
fewer troops than requested would be deployed within six months rather
than spread over 2 years, but there is no clarity yet about the
conditions which could stall the actual deployments. If the troops
were requested urgently 3 months ago for action to avert the risk of
losing within a year, does the fact that Obama has backed off a decision
to spread out deployments over a 2 year period represent progress?
This would seem to just be more political posturing after facing
criticism about it. |
|
December 1, 2009 -
Obama speech: More troops, no endless commitment |
|
December 1, 2009 -
Official: Obama ready to suggest Afghan endgame |
|
December 1, 2009 -
Official: Afghan buildup involves 30,000 troops |
|
November 30, 2009 -
After Afghanistan, Obama to launch jobs push - Comment: Is
Obama trying to deflect attention from the jobs report on Friday with
his Thursday "jobs summit" and another photo op to pretend that he
"wants to hear from the private sector" after trashing business
relentlessly? |
|
November 30, 2009 -
Obama facing tough selling job on Afghan policy - Comment:
Americans aren't opposed to the war. They're opposed to defeat -
sacrificing soldiers without even having a clear commitment and plan for
victory, while the priority in Congress seems to be the political exit
strategy. |
November 29, 2009 -
Senator says Afghan forces, not US, key to success - Comment:
Carl Levin test markets the Obama talking points for the Tuesday
night speech at West Point. What a disgrace.
Douglas MacArthur must be rolling in his grave. No more "Duty, Honor,
Country" at West Point.
Shirk your duty, dishonor your office, and apologize for your country.
That's the Obama doctrine. The Kerry corollary is to blame Bush
for everything.
updated version of the same story on November 30 |
|
November 29, 2009 -
Pakistan's president told to give up powers - Comment: It
would be a serious mistake to think that Nawaz Sharif would be a better
friend in Pakistan than he was in the past, when his government helped
to create the Taliban nightmare which Zardari is fighting today. |
|
November 29, 2009 -
Senator: Troop hike must help boost Afghan forces - Comment:
Note the bit at the end - Carl Levin picking up on Kerry's talking
points about blaming Bush. Why not blame Clinton for not taking
Osama bin Laden seriously as a threat and going after him for eight
years, despite having the intelligence in hand to recognize the danger?
He may not have specifically known about their 9/11 plans, but what
about the first World Trade Center bombing on his watch? Why was
that just treated as a law enforcement issue, when it was clearly
intended to be an act of war against us from the perspective of the
terrorists?
Wait - maybe it's Reagan's fault for not letting the
Soviets win in Afghanistan! That's right! That would have
solved all our problems there! The Soviets could have massacred
all the Islamist radicals, and we could have just expressed our "serious
concern", like Obama - or like Clinton did with the Taliban, or
Carter did when the Soviets invaded. Do you realize how many
Afghan men, women, and children the Soviets ruthlessly massacred or
drove out of the country as refugees for many years? Once the
Soviets left, how much did we do to help them? Is it any wonder
that they doubt our resolve?
No wait! Maybe it's
Mortimer Durand's fault! If he hadn't split the Pashtun tribal
area when setting up the modern border between Afghanistan and Pakistan
in 1893, maybe none of this would have ever happened. That's
right! It's the fault of those scheming British imperialists!
(and don't forget those pesky Russian czars in the "Great Game" in Asia
- before the Bolsheviks took over) It's not
Obama's problem! He's just trying to clean up somebody else's mess
again, right? We should all sit down and shut up and stop
criticizing him, right? Just like his
rally in Virginia. He
found time for that speech in his busy schedule while taking months to
sort out his Afghanistan strategy. |
|
November 29, 2009 -
Senate report: Bin Laden was 'within our grasp' - and
update
Over Tora Bora - blog entry in Mudville Gazette is a nice
reality check for perspective on this story
Comment:
Let me make sure that I understand this weasel Kerry correctly. It
took Obama over three months to decide whether to agree to add forces in
Afghanistan after his commander urged him that action this year is
essential to achieve victory. It has been over 10 months since he
was elected - during which time he kept saying how important the war in
Afghanistan was. He then decided to provide fewer troops than
requested, and drag out their deployment over two years.
Now Kerry is choosing this moment to release a partisan
staff report alleging that Bush failed to deploy enough troops into
Afghanistan before December 2001, even though before September there
were no forces in place or scheduled to support any such deployment.
Kerry and his friends have fought consistently against military spending
and deployments at almost every opportunity, and he lost the election
for very good reasons to Bush. No politics in the timing of this
report, of course.
Afghanistan was a sovereign state in 2001 under the
Taliban rule. Kerry obviously thinks we should have invaded quickly with
more forces to get Osama bin Laden, despite the predictable condemnation
among his friends in Europe, the UN, and elsewhere of any such invasion.
Perhaps, by this logic, he would now favor Obama sending massive forces
over the border into Pakistan to try to hunt down OBL and others there?
No - he's reluctant to see our forces increased at all. He wants the
Afghans and Pakistanis to solve this problem somehow, so that he can go
back to ignoring it. Hypocrite! Weasel! |
|
November 28, 2009 -
Obama prepares to announce Afghan surge - Comment:
Shouldn't this be called something other than a surge, since it will
reportedly be dragged out slowly over two years, with many caveats to
stall the deployment if there are more "surprises", such as pervasive
corruption?
US eyes Afghan drawdown starting by 2013: report - Giving the
Taliban a chance to plan ahead. |
|
November 28, 2009 -
Afghanistan, Iraq: different wars - Comment: Anybody with
even very superficial knowledge of the region should have known this
many years ago. Afghanistan is
different, as pointed out in response to a February 1, 2009 piece in
the Weekly Standard about the surge idea. |
|
November 27, 2009 -
US buildup seen as helpful in 2 Afghan provinces - Comment:
Some progress is being made through local tribal leadership channels.
Will Obama's policy reflect any recognition that
Afghans don't trust or want a strong central government? He
seems to be incapable of understanding that. It is completely
foreign to his big government ideology and his view of local "community
organizing" as the solution for all of his "social justice" priorities.
Afghans don't need or want to be more subservient to a stronger
government in Kabul. They know where tyranny leads, because they
have endured almost nothing else for a very long time. It's not
just about corruption. |
|
November 26, 2009 -
Karzai renews call on Taliban to lay down weapons - Comment:
Reaching out to the Taliban while Obama gives them less reason to stop
fighting against Karzai. If Mullah Omar were really smart, he
would cut a deal quickly with Karzai, thereby giving Obama an excuse to
declare victory and leave quickly. Then they could fight it out for
power after we are gone - just like the way that we screwed up the
endgame after the Soviets pulled out. Would Obama or Congress do
anything to help the people of Afghanistan after pulling out, especially
since there would be plenty of excuses to rationalize doing nothing for
them? Luckily, Mullah Omar is not that smart. |
|
November 25, 2009 -
Obama will unveil Afghan troops move at West Point - Comment: He
just can't resist the opportunity as narcissist in chief to do a photo
op in front of the troops again after taking over three months to make a
decision that he could have made 10 months ago - and in all probability
he will probably still get it wrong. At least it will give him a
nice photo op and prime time TV coverage, however, to try to explain why
he isn't really worse than Carter. Don't believe it. |
|
November 24, 2009 -
Obama promises to 'finish the job' in Afghanistan - Comment:
Just as decisively as Carter finished the job in Afghanistan and Iran,
no doubt. Afghans recognize weakness. |
|
November 24, 2009 -
Obama to unveil plan to add troops in Afghanistan -
Comment: As predicted, the process of test-marketing the
domestic political reaction to the policy begins. Note that this
may also be used now as an excuse for a new war tax in order to try to
drive up opposition to the war at the same time as he leaves the door
open to not deploy forces very rapidly. Instead of a surge
strategy, this seems to be a bleed to death strategy for defeat with a
focus on how to exit ASAP. Deja vu. The Democrats had the same
Iraq strategy. |
|
November 23, 2009 -
Obama could lock in Afghanistan decision Monday - Comment:
No decision will be announced until after the Thanksgiving recess in
Congress. They'll just keep leaking these sorts of trial balloons
about their intentions to test how much political push-back they face,
because the real focus is on domestic politics and the "exit strategy"
so that he can declare the slow plan to be in progress, and thereby try
to deflect criticism of it for many months, even if it is a failure. |
|
November 21, 2009 -
Afghan road builder's dream thwarted by violence - Comment:
A good example of the challenges posed by trying to invest in
infrastructure projects without better security to defend the projects
as well as the people who are behind them. The bureaucrats who
come up with these project ideas and plans aren't the ones whose lives
are on the line to make them a reality. There needs to be local
support, rather than just technocrats telling the locals that they know
best. |
|
November 19, 2009 -
Clinton asks Karzai to bring technocrats into government - Comment:
She still thinks that a stronger central government is always the
solution to any problem - just like the technocracies which other
statists have imposed to repeatedly make a bad situation even worse.
Is it possible that Afghans don't want a stronger central government,
whether by warlords or bureaucrats? Is it really better to
have an unaccountable bureaucrat who pretends not to be a tyrant, rather
than somebody who is at least honest about his intentions? |
|
November 19, 2009 -
AP Analysis: US works with and around Afghan leader - Comment:
Pot calling the kettle black? "I'm less concerned about any
individual than I am with a government as a whole that is having
difficulty providing basic services to its people". Of course,
there is no such failure or any corruption in this administration or in
our Congress or state and local governments. Pay no attention to
the corruption in Illinois, as shown by a few political suicides and
prosecutions. There was never corruption in Arkansas or New York
politics either, as Hillary can readily assure Karzai. |
|
November 19, 2009 -
US woos skeptical Pakistanis on Afghan strategy - Comment:
Why should anyone in Pakistan be skeptical about America's strategic
commitment under Obama? After all, it's like deja vu from the
Carter era, or the rapid collapse of US support after the Soviets
withdrew. While Pakistan is fighting the insurgents, Obama can't
even decide yet when to make a decision. |
|
November 17, 2009 -
Pakistan army shows off gains near Afghan border - Comment:
Maybe the Taliban have a sense of humor after all - if they're reading
Douglas Adams' "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe" in their
spare time in South Waziristan. Ah, the interconnectedness of all
things ... |
|
November 17, 2009 -
Afghanistan slips in corruption index despite aid - Comment:
Perhaps the aid has contributed to the corruption? Maybe more
government is the problem, rather than the solution?
Who does Transparency International survey to compile
this
perception index? Note that this is "based on surveys of
businesses and experts", and yet is spun that "to improve on the
corruption perceptions index, it is imperative that "citizens believe
that they have a government that works for them." "
If that were true, wouldn't they be surveying Afghans rather than
experts and business leaders from elsewhere? Perhaps Afghans don't
perceive the corruption in such a simplistic way. Local "corruption" may
be seen as normal and not particularly harmful, since it is a pretty
traditional way of life. What may be perceived differently is the money
which goes into distant government programs, such as to empower and
enrich some people in Kabul without necessarily delivering much benefit
at the local level.
Maybe the fact that corruption may be common at all
levels disguises the distinction between local deals which reward
results and distant deals which seem to deliver very little. Foreign
business leaders and "experts" may confuse the usual tribal skepticism
in the benefit of a strong central government with willingness to accept
local corruption as a well-established practice which seems to work well
despite any ethical concerns about it - as in Chicago. |
|
November 13, 2009 -
Militants turn on spy agency in Pakistan - Comment: Sadly,
this shows that the Pakistani military offensive is working. If
the militants were not retaliating against ISI offices, there would be
more reason to suspect that a double game is still being played by some
in the ISI. Instead, the more subtle question
now is how successful the militants have been in targeting those in the
ISI who are actively fighting them, perhaps without killing those who
may still sympathize with the Taliban or help them. If these
attacks were precisely targeted against key foes in the ISI and not
friends, rather than randomly bombing obvious ISI buildings, would moles
inside the ISI be helping them and eliminating rivals?
So far, from a distance, the attacks seem to just be
ruthless retaliation against obvious ISI targets, without any remarkable
level of sophistication or success at targeting some officials and not
others. Like the random attacks on civilians in markets as easy
targets, they seem intent on intimidation and spreading terror in
general, without showing any capability for more precise targeting of
key officials as hard targets. |
|
November 5, 2009 -
Pakistan Taliban chief urges troops to fight army - Comment: Getting
worried about desertions and defeat? Meanwhile, they blow up yet
another school for girls. |
|
November 1, 2009 -
AP Analysis: With few options, US accepts Karzai - Comment: Efforts
by Democratic strategists to help boost Abdullah's candidacy during the
election process have failed.
Afghan's Karzai effectively handed 2nd term |
|
November 1, 2009 -
White House: Afghan troop decision with weeks - Comment: Still
trying to decide when to decide to decide. As predicted, it won't
come before the US elections as his main focus. |
|
October 29, 2009 -
Obama considering scaled-down Afghan war plan - Comment:
This shows that his real focus is domestic politics rather than
Afghanistan. He's test-marketing his "strategy". |
|
October 28, 2009 -
Afghan strategy to focus on major population centers: report -
Comment: Leaking military strategy ideas for political
reaction before taking a decision is yet another mistake. |
|
October 28, 2009 -
US diplomat resigns over Afghan war - Comment: Worth a
closer look. |
|
October 28, 2009 -
Afghan support for democracy on decline even before election -
Comment: Poll taken before the election still showed 78% support for
democracy despite obvious frustrations. |
|
October 27, 2009 -
AP IMPACT: Troops already outnumber Taliban 12-1 - Comment:
Superficial paralysis by analysis. This decision should have been
taken months ago, in which case the additional troops would already be
there rather than not available until sometime in 2010 now, if ever.
Gibbs: Obama closer to decision on Afghanistan Not until
after the US election next week, however. |
|
October 24, 2009 -
Pakistani army takes Taliban chief's hometown - Comment:
Symbolic. It will be interesting to see whether the Pakistani army
can keep the terrorists on the run into the winter - when it may be
easier to track them down if they are hiding in any concentrations
outside of the villages (infrared tech) and take them out with less risk
to civilians. Winter on the run in that region is no picnic - especially
if US and NATO forces can shut down escape routes across the passes into
Afghanistan. |
|
October 24, 2009 -
Al-Qaida and the Taliban: Knowing your enemy - Comment: AP
overview of the complexity of the war strategy as rationalization for
continued indecision by Obama. |
|
October 21, 2009 -
Dick Cheney's remarks to the Center for Security Policy - Comment:
"The White House must stop dithering while America's armed forces are in
danger." My own choice of words - back on
September 30, when a decision was
already long overdue. Then there was the news
flash on October 13 that Obama might actually decide to make a
decision within a few weeks. There are similar stories being
floated today about whether to make and announce a decision prior to the
outcome of the Afghan runoff election on November 7, knowing that such
election results won't be available right away.
This is beyond waffling. This seems to be a firm commitment to
failure, now reinforced by lies from Rahm Emanuel alleging no prior
strategic review of Afghan policy since 2001, even though Bush quietly
did one for the transition team. The point is that the Obama team
seems clueless about how to handle Afghanistan at a time when they just
want to focus on quickly pushing their domestic policy agenda through
Congress.
Cheney: Obama's Afghan War Strategy 'Bears Striking Resemblance' to
Bush's When the Obama staff persists in telling lies and
blaming Bush, the gloves come off - even if many in the media will
ignore it. |
|
October 21, 2009 -
Afghan coalition government is an option, US says - Comment:
Why on earth would the US government get involved in trying to promote
the negotiation of a power-sharing deal or coalition government in
Afghanistan? Instead of creating legitimacy as a truly independent
government chosen by the free will of the Afghan people, that will make
it look as though it was a deal brokered by the U.S. to install a new
regime which suits our interests, even if they have to ignore the Afghan
constitution to do it.
That would be a gift to the Taliban, and turn many
Afghans against us. The Obama administration is either clueless,
or is deliberately promoting a path to early failure in Afghanistan with
plausible deniability of accountability for that outcome. In
short, simply let Afghanistan fall apart, and then walk away from it.
Betray the eight years of sacrifices by our military there.
US signals Afghan coalition government is possible - Later
version of the White House talking points. There is nothing subtle
about this. It is direct interference in the internal affairs of
Afghanistan, just like Obama meddling in Honduras. Every nation should
denounce it. This will be perceived as a ploy to set up a weak puppet
regime as the Soviets did, and Afghans will rightly resent it and fight
against it.
It is hard to imagine a more misguided policy, because the blowback will
extend beyond Afghanistan to convince skeptics in other countries that
America no longer promotes democracy, but rather just does deals behind
closed doors to serve the American political agenda.
Afghan ambassador comes out swinging against election critics -
points out that a coalition is illegal. |
|
October 21, 2009 -
Afghan president's rival accepts Nov. 7 runoff - Comment:
How much election fraud can Afghans organize in just 3 weeks, now that
they know the methodology used to detect it?
Afghans take steps to prevent fraud in next vote Fewer
polling places, with many new officials. |
|
October 18, 2009 -
Taliban vow to defeat army in Pakistan offensive - Comment:
Isn't that what they said in Swat, before they were defeated and driven
out? What else would they say? They have to try to maintain
the myth of their popularity and power. If the local tribal
leaders turn on them, they're toast. |
|
October 14, 2009 -
AP sources: Afghan corruption worries McChrystal - Comment:
How much would it cost us to buy off enough
corrupt Afghans to prevail? Surely we have deeper pockets than the
Taliban and Al Qaeda or even the drug lords. We just have to get over
our reluctance to pay local or national leaders off (other than here).
Think of it as inflating the price of corruption until
the enemy can't compete. Pay to play, as they call it here in
Illinois politics. Compare that
Democratic political strategy to the cost of war, or of losing. |
|
October 13, 2009 -
Obama: Afghanistan decision in 'coming weeks' - Comment: A
real news flash. Obama may actually decide to make a decision to
change his previous decision within a few weeks. |
|
October 12, 2009 -
US civilian program for Afghanistan failing: report - Comment: Perhaps
there aren't so many civilian Obama fans out there who want to put their
lives on the line for his new policy. The military has to salute
and obey their commander in chief even when he makes obvious blunders
and doesn't back them up, or undermines their mission and intelligence
support, but civilian volunteers are free to choose for themselves
whether they want to do his bidding. Apparently there's not enough
danger pay or other incentives to get Obama fans to try to carry out his
flawed strategy.
The new White House political strategy seems to be to
just blame it all on Karzai and corruption (nothing new in Afghanistan)
and walk away, regardless of the risks of failure, rather than risk
facing up to the fact that the plan was naive and flawed from the start.
See more thoughts on winning in Afghanistan. |
|
October 6, 2009 -
Al-Qaida showing smaller presence in Afghanistan - Comment:
Starting to make thin excuses for Obama's reluctance to fight the war
which he pretended to support during the campaign. |
|
September 30, 2009 -
Congress approves tripling aid to Pakistan - Comment:
Symbolic gesture, recognizing recent progress by the new government in
Pakistan and the need to do more. To put it in perspective,
however, this is $1.5 billion over 5 years for a critical
national security interest of this country. Compare that to
Senate rebuffs Obama, McCain in backing cargo jets on the same
day, in which $2.5 billion is being redirected to buy 10 C-17s
which the military says it doesn't really need. |
|
September 30, 2009 -
Obama's war council divided on Afghanistan - Comment: Dithering.
Any general worth his stars doesn't rely exclusively on the sifted
information he receives up through the formal chain of command. He goes
to the front and talks to the people who are leading the fight,
especially if there seem to be unexpected problems and a potential need
to change direction. A president needs to reach out beyond his White
House staff, political advisors, and the fawning bureaucrats protecting
their careers to avoid making really dumb mistakes (remember Kennedy?).
This would be like having a CEO who never takes time to talk to anyone
in the company other than his friends at the top, and thus loses touch
with the reality of the business. He's totally clueless as a real
leader of anything more than mindless drones who worship his rhetoric.
After he finishes his Olympic sales pitch in Copenhagen
as cover, Obama should get back onto Air Force One and head to Kabul for
a heart-to-heart with McChrystal and his team, as well as Karzai and
preferably Abdullah to show his concern about election fraud. If he
comes back to Washington to hold more inconclusive meetings and
speeches, that will be a mistake. |
|
September 25, 2009 -
Militant says Pakistani Taliban stronger than ever - Comment:
Honestly, what would you expect him to say to a reporter? Admit
that they have been weakened and divided? As winter approaches in
the tribal region, the military will have some advantages to patiently
exploit. |
|
September 22, 2009 -
AP sources: Instead of troops, maybe more drones - Comment:
Going back to the pre-9/11 strategy, like Clinton's preference to fire a
few missiles into the dirt and declare that he had retaliated and might
even do more someday if provoked - which was never really credible.
This will reinforce the Taliban and Al Qaeda expectation that Obama will
eventually give up and pull out if they continue to apply enough
pressure to raise the political cost of fighting the war.
Obama - go watch "Charlie Wilson's War" and pay attention
to the final scene.
We screwed up the endgame in Afghanistan
by leaving the Afghans to suffer under different tyrants once the ones
of concern to us (Soviets) were gone. The way to finish the game is to
not treat them like pawns in our own grand Asian or global strategy, as
past empires have done, but rather to work with the local Afghan leaders
(not the latest corrupt tyrant wannabes in Kabul). Look at how quickly
public attitudes shifted against the Taliban in Pakistan once their
atrocities in Swat reminded citizens elsewhere of the threat they posed,
and how little they had to offer other than sustained and brutal misery. |
|
September 20, 2009 -
Taliban leader Omar says foreign troops face defeat - Comment:
It's easy to miss the obvious point in this AFP story,
like so many AP and other fringe media versions of coverage of
Afghanistan. The reports keep tabulating US and NATO casualties, as
though that were the key metric of success or failure. When was the last
time that you heard a reliable report of the total Afghan or Pakistani
casualties - combatant or not?
Afghans notice that, as do Pakistanis. That feeds into
the radical rhetoric that we don't care how many of them die, as though
this were our fight rather than their own, or as though we were trying
to build up an empire to rule over the region, like the reference to
Alexander and others. We're too close to Karzai, and too engaged in
ruling from Kabul rather than working with local leaders.
In the war against the Soviets, the ratio was more than 10 Afghans per
Soviet because there was no hesitancy to slaughter entire villages in
reprisal raids after attacks by the mujahideen. That didn't intimidate
the Afghans - it hardened their resolve to take their country back, but
they needed our help to pull it off (Stingers, etc.) against Soviet
helicopter gunships and other weapons. It's a myth that Osama or Mullah
Omar led and won that fight. They were largely irrelevant to it.
The question here is not the American strategy for
victory, but rather the Afghan strategy for creating a successful
country that no longer requires our presence. Karzai seems to have made
little progress in that direction, so even the Pashtuns are losing
patience with him. That doesn't mean that Afghans want the Taliban and
leaders like Omar to come back. The foreign media may ignore how many
Afghans the Taliban are still killing, and that may intimidate some
Afghans, but even the Soviets couldn't rule by intimidation. |
|
September 15, 2009 - AP
Analysis: White House postponing hard calls on war - Comment:
Stalling while they push their domestic agenda as a higher political
priority. Was the shift in strategy and recent increase in troop
levels just a diversion to avoid political criticism while setting the
stage for failure and a hasty retreat later? In other words, let the
Democrats in Congress insist that they are listening to their
constituents by pushing for no more troops, and for a withdrawal
timeline, so that the White House can then comply without appearing to
be responsible for whatever harm eventually comes out of it. This
may not be about developing a winning strategy. It is about Obama
stalling and trying to find an exit strategy after pretending during the
campaign to be committed to the war in Afghanistan as a matter of
political expediency at that time. It may not be high on his
priorities now that he really has to take responsibility for the war
results, even though he really has little control or influence over
events in Afghanistan. |
|
September 10, 2009 -
Pakistan arrests Swat Taliban leaders - Comment: More progress |
|
September 9, 2009 -
The enemy has figured us out - Comment: interesting blog post
about a recent ambush of Marines. There's also related coverage on
other blogs such as
http://www.mudvillegazette.com/ |
|
September 4, 2009 -
Dems signal resistance to Afghan troop increase - Comment:
Impatient to retreat and focus more spending on their domestic agenda
rather than national security interests. |
|
August 31, 2009 -
Gates: Report details highs, lows of Afghan fight - Comment:
So far, there's talk about a new strategy, but not much evidence of it,
or why it should be expected to work better. |
|
August 31, 2009 -
A 'civilian surge' to Afghanistan is just starting - Comment:
Agricultural specialists, educators, engineers ... and lawyers?
Why are we exporting lawyers to Afghanistan? If we
think Afghans are starting to distrust us or prefer the Taliban, wait
until we send them more lawyers! |
|
August 31, 2009 -
US general: New strategy needed to defeat Taliban - Comment:
So, what is it? Given the headline, you might expect some hint of
a new strategy, or some facts to support the premise that Obama's recent
strategy and leadership change before a major offensive against the
Taliban in one of their strongest regions of support is working.
Instead, they're still trying to delay talking about any need for more
troops or money while the domestic political agenda remains the priority
in Washington. Obama probably can't even understand that Afghans
don't want a strong central government. Remember how they fought
the Soviets and the regime they imposed? It's about liberty and local
tribal control of their own lives, not elections. The Taliban were
just tyrants with a different agenda. That's why Afghans were glad
to be rid of them, too. Remember the "Articles of Confederation"
stage of our own history, when people in the various states didn't even
want to trust a strong central government to have even the most basic
authority? |
|
August 29, 2009 -
US faces smaller, smarter enemy in Afghanistan - Comment:
Actually, the most dangerous battle is among specious politicians in
Washington. That's where al Qaeda still expects to win. |
|
August 29, 2009 -
Pakistan destroys suicide bomber training camp - Comment: More
progress. |
|
August 27, 2009 -
In southern Afghan city, fears of Taliban takeover - Comment:
As in Swat, it may actually make tactical sense to
let the Taliban make temporary gains in
places where the locals may turn on them, but preferably in remote
places where it will be easier to target them once they feel that they
can act with impunity. Kandahar isn't such a place. It may
draw Taliban back from places like Quetta and some of the more remote
Pushtun areas, and concentrate their atrocities in a major city where
locals have been more supportive. That would give them an
operating base among many supportive civilians again and perhaps
stronger ties to the drug trade and other smugglers in the region as a
way to help fund their operations. The fact that many Kandahar
residents would not want the Taliban to return, while others might
welcome them, makes this a more dangerous place in which to lose
control. It will be costly to regain it if lost again.
Not enough Americans are paying attention to the
situation in Afghanistan these days. Obama's new strategy could still
snatch defeat from the jaws of victory at a tremendous future cost, just
as Bush Sr and Congress blew the endgame after the Soviets were forced
out and thereby set the stage for the rise of al Qaeda and the Taliban.
As Obama's political support and agenda in Congress collapses like
Carter's, the risks are high that he will just throw the Afghans under
the bus again, and thereby set the stage for future crises in the
region. He seems clueless about how to deal with a country where people
don't want a strong central government. |
|
August 25, 2009 -
Pakistani Taliban admit leader Mehsud killed - Comment:
Asif Ali Zardari seems to be making good progress now - including the
death of Mehsud, allegedly Benazir Bhutto's murderer. The news
media narrative a few months ago about his alleged weakness or
corruption seems to be changing. |
|
August 24, 2009 -
Young Guantanamo prisoner back in Afghanistan - Comment: Not to
be outdone by the Scots and their Lockerbie terrorist release, this
resembles the European catch and release policy. |
|
August 24, 2009 -
Afghans move toward reconciliation with Taliban - Comment:
Too eager to cut a deal, as in Pakistan previously? Are there
weaknesses to exploit, or is this just to relieve the new pressure? |
|
August 23, 2009 -
Obama facing hard choices on Afghanistan war plans - Comment:
Leadership? Sounds like a political "don't ask, don't tell" policy
for unpopular force levels. Worse than Lyndon Johnson? |
|
August 23, 2009 -
Mullen worried over public support for Afghan war - Comment:
As Obama's popularity slips, is he going to defend this alleged priority
from his campaign, or throw it under the bus too? The Democrats
always alleged that this was the "right" war on which Bush should have
concentrated, rather than the "war of choice" in Iraq. Now that
Obama is actually responsible for this war, expect hypocrisy. |
|
August 23, 2009 -
Pakistan Taliban commander vows Afghan fight - Comment: Infighting
is good. Rivalries create opportunities for intelligence
operations. They also expose the Taliban's true nature to locals. |
|
August 23, 2009 -
Ruthless new Pakistan Taliban leader named - Comment: Expect
more attacks as internal rivalries for leadership continue. That
should help to turn more Pakistanis against the Taliban. |
|
August 16, 2009 -
US envoy praises Pakistan progress against Taliban - Comment:
Shifting focus to economic development and energy. Military
"winding down" offensive against Taliban? |
|
August 11, 2009 -
US Army brigade retools for new Afghan mission - Comment: A
little AP recognition that Afghanistan is really another world by
comparison to Iraq. |
|
July 10, 2009 -
Pakistani refugees begin returning home - Comment: Rapid
reconstruction is critical. |
|
July 2009 -
Pakistani media reports; The rise of the Taliban, the fall of Karachi
- Comment: Interesting recent translations from MEMRI (Middle
East Media Research Institute) -
www.memri.org The gist is that citizens are being blackmailed
into giving money to the Taliban. The part of Karachi mentioned in
one report (Clifton) is an affluent area where many foreigners and
business leaders live. |
|
July 2, 2009 -
US Marines launch major offensive in Afghanistan - Comment:
New strategy? |
|
July 1, 2009 -
Poll: Pakistanis view Taliban as threat to country - Comment:
80% view them as a threat to Pakistan, and 70% favor how the government
has been going after them recently. Regardless of the actual
numbers, this represents a very significant swing in Pakistani public
opinion recently, and is fundamental to an effective counterinsurgency
strategy in the country. Source:
WorldPublicOpinion.org |
|
July 1, 2009 -
Major military operation under way in Afghanistan - Comment:
A major test. |
|
June 28, 2009 -
Afghan minister says drug strategy is 'perfect' - Comment:
Not the new one. The failure to make significant progress at
limiting Afghan opium production for decades. The new policy will
basically abandon the pretense that it is working, and shift the blame
elsewhere instead.
June 27, 2009 -
US announces big shift in Afghanistan drug policy - Comment:
What alternate crops do you suggest which grow like a weed in such a
climate and are worth so much? |
|
June 24, 2009 -
US general says troops need new view of Afghan war - Comment:
More on the new policy of treating any civilian areas as sanctuaries for
the Taliban. Let's see now - how did that policy work out for the
Pakistanis when they gave the Taliban control of Swat for a while?
Are we just giving the Taliban a green light to exercise ruthless
control in civilian areas, as in the past, so that they will get full
blame for any casualties as a reminder of what Taliban rule was like?
How can we make progress at helping Afghans to build a
better future if we follow this strategy? Why would local tribal
leaders support us if they know we will back off if they come under
attack? Are we trying to lure the Taliban back into Afghanistan
along with pressure now from Pakistan? |
|
June 22, 2009 -
New US battle rule: No fighting near Afghan homes - Comment: Now
it's official. All the Taliban and Al Qaeda supporters have to do
is hide behind civilians in the villages, and they're safe. Is
this any way to fight an insurgency? Is this a deliberate plan for
failure? Will Afghan security forces take the lead now in going
after the Taliban in villages or remote areas? |
|
June 2, 2009 - General: War in Afghanistan is `winnable' - Comment:
The focus still seems to be on limiting our rules of engagement to avoid
civilian casualties, rather than to reach
out to local leaders. |
|
May 27, 2009 - Civilians suffer in Pakistan army war on Taliban -
Comment: Try turning
that headline around for the truth - Civilians suffer
as Taliban fight for control of Pakistan.
Why should we expect the Pakistani Army to fight and defeat the Taliban
without many civilian casualties?
The Taliban murder civilians
deliberately to enforce their control, and use them as hostages or
"human shields". It will be a bloody fight, but the myth that the
Taliban can operate with impunity in the frontier needs to be shaken
severely enough that local tribal leaders will risk standing up to their
tyranny. The Army won't defeat the Taliban alone, but it can
weaken them until the tribes turn on the Taliban. That will also
require high confidence that the Pakistani government will better
respect their local tribal interests rather than soon go away again and
leave them exposed to vicious Taliban reprisals. |
|
May 24, 2009 - Afghanistan's rebuilding looms as sequel to Iraq's -
Comment: There probably has been a lot of waste in Iraq and
Afghanistan, but there has also been a lot of progress. Since any
Inspector General justifies staff and funding by finding problems,
that's the focus of their reports. |
|
May 19, 2009 - Clinton to detail US humanitarian aid to Pakistan -
Comment: $10 million? For an estimated 1.5 million potential
refugees from the fighting in Swat? Do the math. This is the
strategy for winning hearts and minds? Demonstrating Obama's
commitment to the importance of this conflict? See subsequent
Clinton details US humanitarian aid to Pakistan - which reports
2 million refugees and a total of $110 million in aid (some through
State, and some from Defense), without very clear details. |
|
May 19, 2009 - Pakistan races to deal with 1.5 million refugees -
Comment: We ignored the plight of Afghans and Pakistanis after
the Soviets pulled out, and look where it got us. Here is a chance
to win back some hearts and minds - or to reinforce the extremists for a
very long time by ignoring refugees. |
|
May 5, 2009 - Thousands flee Pakistan valley as truce crumbles -
Comment: Just in time for the meeting between Obama, Hamid
Karzai, and Asif Ali Zardari. |
|
April 24, 2009 - Pakistani Taliban pull back to Swat stronghold -
Comment: A tactical retreat after a brief foray in the direction of
Islamabad to reinforce their image of power, and the government's
weakness. Meanwhile, Obama has "expressed dismay"
about this latest advance by the Taliban. He doesn't get it.
We shall see where this leads.
Having all the bad guys feel confident that they are winning, and can
now operate with impunity in the Swat valley, and try to push into less
friendly areas, may actually help to isolate and
consolidate this enemy in one place
instead of having them scattered all over the frontier.
It's not clear that the
Pakistani military is really willing to confront them now, instead of
enjoying their perks while still pretending that India is the main
threat to Pakistan. Then again, there's little evidence that Obama
wants to do anything more than talk and befriend tyrants, either.
Politically, the Taliban
need to overreach and turn Pakistani public opinion against themselves
despite any misgivings or the usual gripes about their existing
government, particularly given their economic crisis. They need Swat as
a poster child for just how bad Taliban rule in Pakistan could be for
everyone else. That means the people of Swat are being sacrificed
to the Taliban as an example for others in Pakistan to see.
The Taliban have supporters
in the frontier region, but are much less likely to be popular in the
Punjab and Sind once people focus on what their rule would actually mean
for themselves, instead of just as the usual anti-corrupt-government
griping and partisan politics, such as the self-serving moves by Nawaz
Sharif.
This could push Pakistan
back to military rule as the lesser of evils, and that's unfortunate
because it might lead to civil war against the tribal regions. That
would rip the country apart as partition from India did. |
|
April 23, 2009 - US lacks civilians for Afghan 'civilian surge' -
Comment: So, Obama is having trouble finding civilian
volunteers to help rebuild Afghanistan
through central government sponsored initiatives, so it looks as
though he is going to call up the reserves again to do it, after talking
about how important it was to not rely so heavily upon our reserves or
outside contractors. How's military recruitment going these days? |
|
April 6, 2009 - Afghans welcome but also doubt new war strategy -
Comment: Justifiable skepticism.
These people remember the misery which weak American presidents ignore,
and fear it. The Taliban leaders assert that they will fight to
the death against us - not only in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but in
America if they can pull it off.. So this is how we open a new
diplomatic dialogue? |
|
March 27, 2009 - AP Analysis: New war strategy requires outside help
- Comment: What new war strategy in Afghanistan? Ask the
Europeans for more help? Ask Pakistani leaders to crack down on Al
Qaeda, and rein in ISI collaboration with the Taliban or other Islamist
radicals, despite the recent deal in Swat, while asking Afghan leaders
to negotiate with the Taliban? Is everybody confused yet? |
|
March 27, 2009 - Obama widens al-Qaida war, making it his own -
Comment: Maybe he will deploy liberal community activists to
the tribal areas to protest corruption in Kabul and Islamabad? Is
there real recognition of the importance of working with local tribal
leaders, as in the "surge" strategy? Are we demonstrably on the
side of "we the people" in Pakistan and Afghanistan, or more corruption?
Remember this quote from the article: "I
want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused
goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida in Pakistan and
Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the
future," Obama said. "That's the goal that must be achieved. That is a
cause that could not be more just."
Comment: This may seem to be a "just cause"
from a populist American political perspective, but that's irrelevant.
Wars are not won by their cause being "just". They are won by
defeating the most determined enemy despite the cost of doing so.
Are these lofty war goals attainable with the limited resources
involved? Will Afghans and Pakistanis share this goal? Some
of their leaders may share our perception of al-Qaida as a threat, but
they and their people have many complex goals. You might as well
declare that it is our goal to rid Afghanistan and Pakistan of guns.
Lofty rhetoric, but not a viable strategy, because few people in the
tribal regions of either country would share such a goal. They
really do cling to their guns and religion - and certainly don't trust a
strong central government, because they already know that it has rarely
brought them anything except prolonged misery. |
|
February 28, 2009 - Pakistan says Taliban beaten back in border region
- Comment: It may not seem like much at first, but limiting where
the militants can operate with impunity is important, both symbolically
and from a military
counter-insurgency standpoint. It also prods the worst
militants who are not tied to one local tribal area to move on to some
other which is perceived to be more safe. That concentrates them
as a target in places where their actions may soon wear out their local
welcome. |
|
February 27, 2009 - Pakistan opposition chief warns of dangerous chaos
- Comment: Ironic criticism since Nawaz Sharif was a major
beneficiary of martial law in the past, as under Zia ul Haq |
|
February 25, 2009 - Pakistan FM pushes US for drones - Comment:
Tricky issue, like the F-16 sales in the early Reagan years. Given
the Kashmir situation, India surely won't like this idea. |
|
February 25, 2009 - Experts say Pakistan is on trajectory to failure
- Comment: Experts may not be the right choice of words
in this AP story, but economic progress in Pakistan is very important. |
|
February 25, 2009 - Pakistan court bars opposition leader from office
- Comment: Good for them. Look at what happened to
Pakistan during the rise to power and
past
tenure of Nawaz Sharif Remember, he rose through his support
of military dictator Zia ul Haq - who led the growth of radical Islamist
groups in Pakistan. Look at the nuclear program, his war with
India, rise of the Taliban, etc. |
