President Obama and Afghanistan: Speech Critiques

[Darth Rotor]

Just watched the President's speech at West Point. The blabbing classes are now attempting to spin his speech, so I have shut them off. Here is some of what I got out of it.

General McChrystal asked for 40K, he'll get about 30K beginning in early 2010.

The time limit is about 18 months. Then, since it is presumed various civil objectives laid down for the Afghan governmental effort will be achieved, the draw down commences. (Cynical me notes proximity to US 2012 election, but hey, politics is the father of war, even now).

Article V of NATO treaty and original UN tie in brought up, and appeal to a coalition of 43 nations is made. (Coalition of the willing allies, I guess. US strategy since Desert Storm has been to do such things via coalitions).

Appeal to "Sept 12" Americans is made, to remind Americans that we were at one point sort of unified behind the effort in Afghanistan. He asks that we collectively focus on that again, and unite under a common purpose.

Pointed out (his speech writers must read my posts here :p ) that US has underwritten Global security, as no other nation has, for over sixty years. He assures the world that we will continue to do so. He made a comment that I took as a greater emphasis on non armed means in the future. Tied that to his "no nukes" long term aim, which he juxtaposed with the aims of terrorists to get their hands on nukes.

He presented a direct tie in between US security and Pakistani security, and an effort to strengthen both Pakistani civil and armed efforts versus extremism.

Made some allusions to the Iraq war's costs, 30 billion a year for Afghanistan next year, and US forces leaving Iraq.

Much else.

It was a pretty decent speech, longer on business like presentation of what, why, and when, and shorter on platitudes and filler, though some crept in at the end. A nice change. Tone clipped and direct.

In defining a limited war for a limited objective, rather than as he called it " an open ended nation building effort" he placed himself squarely in GHW Bush's strategic school of thought. (I expect a thousand points of light to arrive shortly under a different name, domestically). He also pointed out that the core nation building he is interested in is in the US. HE made the usual comments in re the linkage between economic strength, and the tie in to diplomatic and military power derived from that. Boilerplate stuff.

What I liked most about his speech was the dry, business like delivery; the clarity of thought, the explicit aims, and the acknowledgment of some of the more obvious challenges.

He stated his position in re Al Qaeda and Taliban: they are stuck on the same side, in our eyes. I expect much fruitful criticism of that baseline position among the more elegant opinion writers in the coming weeks.

Will seek a transcript tomorrow for a more detailed critique and commentary.

ETA:
:)

Thank you, Lisa, for providing the transcript so soon, I was going from hearing it to the critique.

DR

[Lisa Simpson]

Transcript:

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.

[Eyeron]

So what was that about change again? I don't see it.

[Piggy]

Rhetorically, I find very little to fault in the speech.

I even disagree w/ you, DR, regarding what you consider platitudes.

The structure and pacing were very well thought out, and it's quite effective to move from background to strategy to "why we fight".

If he had omitted that last bit, a piece would have been missing. We need to be reminded that this is not just strategic, but that it's inextricable from our values. If he hadn't made that clear link, he would have failed to assure us that he knows why the sacrifices we have made thus far have not been in vain.

In fact, I wish he had made more explicit reference to the sacrifice in human life during the parts of the speech when he was referring to the financial costs. And that's actually my primary criticism of the speech.

[Darth Rotor]

Rhetorically, I find very little to fault in the speech.
One of his better efforts, yes.
I even disagree w/ you, DR, regarding what you consider platitudes.
Tastes differ, and I have less than charitable thoughts on politicians in general. What I came for I got, the simple issue of Afghanistan and the strategic arena. That he felt he had to tie a few other issues in may be an unavoidable consequence of politics. I understand that, even if I don't like it.


DR

[Peephole]

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.
Goddamn, he's actually defending the Iraq war.
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.
Electoral fraud we can believe in.

Of all the terrible things Obama has done, this probably the worst.

[Darth Rotor]

Goddamn, he's actually defending the Iraq war.
Not quite.
Electoral fraud we can believe in.

Funny, that. :)
Of all the terrible things Obama has done, this probably the worst.
Bolded for the benefit of the readership here, to identify "stupidity in action" as it happens.

It's a speech. None of his pronouncements were much of a surprise. (If your intention was over the top sarcasm, as Piggy did in the other thread, you failed to communicate it. )

Your usage of 'worst' demonstrates either a failure to grasp meanings in the English language, or a world view losing touch with reality.

Given your demonstrated ability in English, the latter is most likely.

There is still hope for you. Drop an anchor. Scuttle the hyperbole ferry.

DR

[Piggy]

Of all the terrible things Obama has done, this probably the worst.

Which terrible things are those, btw?

[Dragoonster]

Technically I thought it was bold and decisive. I disagreed with a lot of the content, though I'm glad he set a tentative date for draw-down.

One passage that irked me, though it isn't a prime topic of discussion:

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.

America is very selective on who they speak for, who they war for. We've ignored atrocities in the past, helped plenty of oppressive regimes, etc. At this moment we're supporting a possibly corrupt guy in Karzai, and have gotten into bed with Pakistan. Both may blowback on us in a decade, like Iraq and former Afghanistan did. Only recently was Saudi Arabia, the least democratic country in the ME, relegated from our biggest ally and military base. Our allies are chosen for expediency in furthering whatever current agendas we have, and we often chose an only slightly lesser evil, or even greater. So, not really buying this.

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.

The US does seek and hold world hegemony, economically and militarily. It's sphere of influence is as large as many former world powers, it has many hundreds of bases around the world, global projection of force, and unparalleled political power. It doesn't personally occupy many nations, and doesn't annex any, but that's a rarity for all nations these days. It has and does attempt or succeed in coups however, putting US-friendly folks in power no matter how dirty they are.

The majority of US interference in world affairs is for its benefit. Perhaps some is for moral benefit or consideration of others, but it's too inconsistent to really claim that as a driving motivation. Obama may believe everything he says, but he's believing in an unreal idealism. The reality is that the US causes a lot of political unrest in the world, and has enabled, allied with, and put into power plenty of human-rights violaters.

[Piggy]

Which terrible things are those, btw?

Oops. No, wait, ignore that. Surefire derail.

I won't respond to a reply to that on this thread. I'd rather keep on topic.

My apologies to the OP.

[Piggy]

The reality is that the US causes a lot of political unrest in the world, and has enabled, allied with, and put into power plenty of human-rights violaters.

Indeed we have. But you know what they say about past performance. I see here an appeal to the better angels of our nature.

Pie in the sky? Probably. But without it, we don't shoot as high as we otherwise might.

I'm keeping a close eye on our response to Honduras.

It was interesting that the White House and the embassy were talking at cross-purposes on that one. Clearly, the embassy took the side of the CIA.

[Dr Adequate]

So what was that about change again? I don't see it. Then you must be very happy.

Please share your feelings of complacency with the Tea-Baggers.

[Cynic]

Good speach, as usual (IMO). I've always been sort of beside myself on war issues, wishing we as a nation could do more to free people from oppression. As an ideal, focusing on ourselves when we're so comparatively well off and letting others eat dirt and suffer doesn't rank very highly with me. But at the same time, it's true that America is somewhat of a wounded animal right now, and facing economic threats we've never experienced before in terms of global competition on the world market. While I'd like, in a perfect world, to see Iraq and Afghanistan put to bed properly regardless of the cost and time involved (because we should clean up after ourselves), I think he's made the case that nipping this all in the bud and refocusing is the best way to go.

I was particularly interested in a fact (one presumes) he mentions about how no plans were put before him that requested troop increases before 2010. After the near hysteria from the right and their media outlets about how Obama has been taking too long and ignoring McChrystal's pleas, I'm curious about the details here.

[Policenaut]

I was particularly interested in a fact (one presumes) he mentions about how no plans were put before him that requested troop increases before 2010. After the near hysteria from the right and their media outlets about how Obama has been taking too long and ignoring McChrystal's pleas, I'm curious about the details here.

I find that somewhat hard to believe since McChrystal said they only had 12 months to turn the tides in Afghanistan back when he first gave his assessment at the end of August.

[CHF]

Obama's a great orator but a lot of what he said tonight had me scratching my head.

He announced a surge of 30,000 troops while including a time-line for withdrawals! Setting time-lines is a bad idea in almost any war, but especially a counter-insurgency. He might as well have said "Hear that, Taliban? All you gotta do is wait us out for 18 months." And they will.

You can't fight counter-insurgency like that and if the US isn't going to fight to win then they shouldn't fight at all.

Obama also pretended that Al Qaeda and the Taliban are one and the same. Simply not true.

Al Qaeda is an extremist ideology representing Islamic fundamentalists from all over the world - one that doesn't need a "safe haven" or training camps in order to operate (a couple rooms in Baghdad, Madrid, Hamburg, London or Toronto does just fine).

The Taliban, meanwhile, are a LOCAL movement made up of Pashtu tribes, one that is concerned only with their own neighbourhood. Not a single Pashtu has staged a terror attack anywhere outside of Afghan/Pakistan.

Indeed, the Taliban insurgency at this point is essentially a tribal uprising by the Pashtu against a foreign army and the northern ethnic groups supporting it. But notice that Obama omitted any mention of how this is largely a local civil/ethnic war - the Pashtu Taliban vs. the Afghan government security forces based around the northern Uzbeks, Tajiks, and Hazarra. (Ironically, this is exactly where the USSR found itself in the 1980s - same enemies and same allies; only difference was that the US was on the rebelling Pashtus' side back then).

These factions were fighting a war before we arrived and they'll fight when we're gone.

As for tackling Afghan "corruption," give me a break. How exactly does Obama plan on doing this in a country where EVERYONE IN POWER is corrupt? The whole Karzai regime is corrupt from top-to-bottom. Obama simply isn't having an honest discussion about Afghanistan if the word "warlord" doesn't come up once in a 35 minute talk.

To compound this insanity, the new Afghan war plan calls for US/NATO forces to focus on securing the top 10 urban centers in the country as well as a few agricultural areas.

If this urban-based strategy sounds familiar, it's probably because it's exactly what the Soviets did!

The inevitable result is a few cities relatively secured (yet still under attack), while the other 95% of the country falls firmly under insurgent control. Afghans don't call Hamid Karzai "the Mayor of Kabul" for nothing.

The only way to win a counter-insurgency is

1) to live among the local people to gathering intel and build trust (which US forces did as part of the surge in Iraq) and

2) to "turn" the insurgency to your side via alliances or defections (which is how the US subdued Anbar province in Iraq and how the Russians crushed the insurgency in Chechnya).

While it's good to hear that the US supports negotiations with "moderate" Taliban, and is trying to repeat the success of the Iraqi "Sunni Awakening" movement by allying with Pashtu tribes, it's hard to see how that can suceed in the face of everything else.

[ravdin]

I'm usually not one of the President's biggest cheerleaders, but IMO it was a fine speech. He made a clear case for what our strategy and objectives will be. I also think he's making the best decision among the options on the table.

He's about to take a bashing from the left and the right. I hope he can prove the critics on both ends of the spectrum to be wrong.

[foxholeatheist]

Obama is going to draw some of the moderate GOP to his side and with the same stroke push away some of the more liberal Democrats... The partisan reaction will be interesting, it's got some funny backspin going on.

Setting time-lines is a bad idea in almost any war, but especially a counter-insurgency. He might as well have said "Hear that, Taliban? All you gotta do is wait us out for 18 months." And they will.

I'm sure the US will hang on in an "advisory" capacity much like we still are in Iraq even after the June 30th "withdraw". I think some of the lessons learned from Iraq can carry over quite well in Afghanistan. Enabling the Afghan military to defend it's own country and secure it's own future would be a great start.

The only way to win a counter-insurgency is

1) to live among the local people to gathering intel and build trust (which US forces did as part of the surge in Iraq) and

2) to "turn" the insurgency to your side via alliances or defections (which is how the US subdued Anbar province in Iraq and how the Russians crushed the insurgency in Chechnya).

Well put.

We simply paid them better than AQI and they folded quicker than wet sheet in a stiff wind. Those very turncoats are turning in the few remaining active insurgents left right and center and they know it. I can see this becoming a problem once we leave because most of the AQI that we have had the pleasure of actually meeting foresee the current Iraqi government collapsing in on itself and swift/brutal retributions met out to all those that cooperated with the MNF. That's actually been used to recruit members into AQI cells believing they and their families would be spared once the MNF leaves Iraq.

On top of that, we have problems with some of the local SOI. We have enabled them to become the new thugs of their neighborhoods giving them arms and training which they have turned around to commit acts of sectarian violence on their own.

The urban centers are too easy to control. It's the countryside where it gets hairy especially in a place like Afghanistan where so much of the population is rural (relative to Iraq) and isolated from it's national government.

[lionking]

A fine speech in my opinion.

Unfortunately Australia will not be increasing it's contribution to Afghanistan.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I find the progressives' criticism of the speech disappointing. On the one hand the mess that made the whole situation worse occurred because we funded/supported the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan then just pulled out when the Soviets left. The Taliban took over after that. So how can just pulling out be the right answer this time?

I agree with Stephanie Miller's comment tonight after the speech, as a liberal I am against war in general but as a woman I am against the Taliban. There was a struggle to free the oppressed women in Afghanistan long before 911 and I for one have not forgotten that. The Taliban's treatment of women cannot be allowed to resume.


I'm willing to see if Obama is as intelligent as his speeches in dealing with this problem. If we spend as much on economic development of the country as we spend on the military intervention, then we can turn things around. If we just go in there and ignore the underlying reasons the Taliban are successful at recruiting, then indeed, nothing will change. I was hoping to hear Obama say he would support schools that rival the Madrassas which are a source of recruits for the Taliban. But he did not mention it.


Obama's description of what makes this country great and what America really stands for, reflects my view of the world and what I wish this country actually did stand for. Unfortunately for that part of the speech, I found it full of untruths. Claiming we've never taken other countries' natural resources for ourselves was a lie. We've done it over and over. The US and Britain literally split the MidEast regions' oil resources between themselves in the 50s and that is where a lot of 'blowback' is coming from to this day.


But if Obama goes forward with that idealistic philosophy, that Americans are like John Wayne's portrayal of us in the old war movies, then I'm OK with the speech even knowing it was not true about us in the past. Afterall, if Obama would have spoken the truth the conservatives would have had way more than a cow about it. We'd of never heard the end that it was a blame America speech.


I thought the speech was good. Now we just have to see if the actions taken are just as good.



On another note, Cheney is insane. I think he may really be off his nut. Very disgusting crap came from him over the last few weeks. He needs to admit he screwed up or shut up.

[Bob Blaylock]

Obama's a great orator but a lot of what he said tonight had me scratching my head.

He announced a surge of 30,000 troops while including a time-line for withdrawals! Setting time-lines is a bad idea in almost any war, but especially a counter-insurgency. He might as well have said "Hear that, Taliban? All you gotta do is wait us out for 18 months." And they will.

You can't fight counter-insurgency like that and if the US isn't going to fight to win then they shouldn't fight at all.


I caught this bit of his speech during my lunch break, and all I could think was how incredibly, unforgivably stupid he was being.

Whether we should continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is matter of debate. But one thing we should never, ever do, is tell the enemy that we're going to stop fighting by a particular date, while the war is still underway. I am dumbfounded that we have a President who doesn't know better than this—who cannot clearly see what the consequences will be of this error.

We've just given the enemy what they need to beat us. They just need to lay low and conserve their resources, until we reach the designated pullout date. After that date, when we are no longer there to oppose them, they'll have all the resources that they've saved up to begin a renewed fight against the allied government that we leave behind.

Stupid, stupid, stupid!

[Darat]

I caught this bit of his speech during my lunch break, and all I could think was how incredibly, unforgivably stupid he was being.

Whether we should continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is matter of debate. But one thing we should never, ever do, is tell the enemy that we're going to stop fighting by a particular date, while the war is still underway. I am dumbfounded that we have a President who doesn't know better than this—who cannot clearly see what the consequences will be of this error.

We've just given the enemy what they need to beat us. They just need to lay low and conserve their resources, until we reach the designated pullout date. After that date, when we are no longer there to oppose them, they'll have all the resources that they've saved up to begin a renewed fight against the allied government that we leave behind.

Stupid, stupid, stupid!

If you read the transcript you'll see that is not what he said:


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.

[Redtail]

If you read the transcript you'll see that is not what he said:

Really? Think so? I dare you to put on your right wing ideological filters and listen to that speech again!

[Darth Rotor]

I find the progressives' criticism of the speech disappointing. On the one hand the mess that made the whole situation worse occurred because we funded/supported the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan then just pulled out when the Soviets left. The Taliban took over after that. So how can just pulling out be the right answer this time?
"Just pulling out?" Where is that in his speech? Please consider, in this thread, your own critique of his speech rather than your critique of somebody else's analysis or spin.
I agree with Stephanie Miller's comment tonight after the speech, as a liberal I am against war in general but as a woman I am against the Taliban. There was a struggle to free the oppressed women in Afghanistan long before 911 and I for one have not forgotten that. The Taliban's treatment of women cannot be allowed to resume.
I hear an echo of Hillary Clinton, mid 1990's. From what you wrote there, you feel we should spend our blood and treasure on women's liberation, world wide. Is that your preferred expenditure of our blood and treasure, cultural imperialism? Where changes have come, the world over, in the status of women, it has not generally come at the point of American bayonets. The change comes from exposure to more modern social models, and from within the society in question.
I'm willing to see if Obama is as intelligent as his speeches in dealing with this problem.
As am I. But it isn't just him, it's his entire policy team, both civil and military.
I was hoping to hear Obama say he would support schools that rival the Madrassas which are a source of recruits for the Taliban. But he did not mention it.
It may be a subset of the policy, or not. He made a general reference to increasing the other-than-armed efforts, but as you note, the specifics were lacking. I think that is an artifact of what he and his team felt were the critical topics of focus in his speech. Time is finite, a speech cannot address all concerns or it becomes unwieldly. Public Speaking 101. There is time for him, and for his Secretary of State, to amplify the policy steps to be undertaken via non-armed efforts
Obama's description of what makes this country great and what America really stands for, reflects my view of the world and what I wish this country actually did stand for. Unfortunately for that part of the speech, I found it full of untruths. Claiming we've never taken other countries' natural resources for ourselves was a lie. We've done it over and over. The US and Britain literally split the MidEast regions' oil resources between themselves in the 50s and that is where a lot of 'blowback' is coming from to this day.
If I may refer to Donald Sutherland (Odball) in Kelley's Heroes, we see here another case of "always with the negative waves, Moriarty." Your hair shirt is on order.
But if Obama goes forward with that idealistic philosophy, that Americans are like John Wayne's portrayal of us in the old war movies, then I'm OK with the speech even knowing it was not true about us in the past. Afterall, if Obama would have spoken the truth the conservatives would have had way more than a cow about it. We'd of never heard the end that it was a blame America speech.
I am trying to grasp what value the American President accrues when he blames America, or dwells on our mistakes. Why do you choose to dwell on them?
I thought the speech was good. Now we just have to see if the actions taken are just as good.
Agreed.
On another note, Cheney is insane. I think he may really be off his nut. Very disgusting crap came from him over the last few weeks. He needs to admit he screwed up or shut up.
This thread isn't about Dick Cheney. It is about what President Obama is doing, where he wants to go with this challenge based on what he told America and the world last night.

DR

[Puppycow]

We've just given the enemy what they need to beat us. They just need to lay low and conserve their resources, until we reach the designated pullout date. After that date, when we are no longer there to oppose them, they'll have all the resources that they've saved up to begin a renewed fight against the allied government that we leave behind.

Stupid, stupid, stupid!

Sure, they could do that, and meanwhile the training of the Afghan army will continue unmolested and by the time we leave they'll be ready to take over.

Please, let the Taliban "lay low" for the next two years! Best case scenario.

[Travis]

Actually the establishment of a tentative timeline might be beneficial. A lot of the Pashtun are fighting because they have been led to believe that the US wants to be an occupier there permanently for some reason (according to my friend who served there with the USMC) so giving them the idea that we are in fact interested in stabilizing the place and then pulling out might compel some to question why they are supporting the insurgency. It won't mean much to the radicals but they are never going to be won over anyways.

[BeAChooser]

I agree with this guy ...

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/setting_up_our_military_to_fail_lBlTIHm69SM02Lly5J bNaO


Setting up our military to fail

... snip ...

Our president is setting up our military to fail -- but he'll be able to claim that he gave the generals what they wanted. Failure will be their fault.

... snip ...


What messages did our president's bait-and-switch speech just send?

To our troops: Risk your lives for a mission I've written off.

To our allies: Race you to the exit ramp.

To the Taliban: Allah is merciful, your prayers will soon be answered.

To Afghan leaders: Get your stolen wealth out of the country.

To Pakistan: Renew your Taliban friendships now (and be nice to al Qaeda).

This isn't just stupid: It's immoral. No American president has ever espoused such a worthless, self-absorbed non-strategy for his own political gratification.

[Eyeron]

Then you must be very happy.

Please share your feelings of complacency with the Tea-Baggers.

I'm neither liberal nor conservative as I hate both parties to no end. So don't assume things.

[Kariboo]

We've just given the enemy what they need to beat us. They just need to lay low and conserve their resources, until we reach the designated pullout date. After that date, when we are no longer there to oppose them, they'll have all the resources that they've saved up to begin a renewed fight against the allied government that we leave behind.



Don't you think that they already would have done so if that were an option? Why not play dead 3 years ago? Pretend you don't exist anymore and the troops will cry victory and leave.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I caught this bit of his speech during my lunch break, and all I could think was how incredibly, unforgivably stupid he was being.

Whether we should continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is matter of debate. But one thing we should never, ever do, is tell the enemy that we're going to stop fighting by a particular date, while the war is still underway. ....This is one view. And in that view you are saying the issue is: the radicals in the region are the key to the war.

What Obama has recognized (I hope) is the lesson we should have learned long ago but mostly haven't. That is: this kind of war is won only when the people are on your side. Right now the Afghans are being persuaded by those few radicals that we are liars really only there to occupy the country. The same was the case in Iraq.

The people in both these countries see a foreign army occupying their country. For every innocent person we kill as collateral damage, they see themselves as powerless to influence this foreign occupier.

Obama is sending the message, we are here to help you, not control you.

Smart smart smart!!!!!!!!!



And by the way, your view was in practice for over 6 years and things have only deteriorated since Bush proclaimed, "Mission accomplished", in 2003.

[Skeptic Ginger]

"Just pulling out?" Where is that in his speech? Please consider, in this thread, your own critique of his speech rather than your critique of somebody else's analysis or spin. [snipped the reply to imaginary comments]
DRPlease try again and take off your, "I know what she wrote without reading it glasses", thank you.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I agree with this guy ...

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/setting_up_our_military_to_fail_lBlTIHm69SM02Lly5J bNaOApparently the claim Bush took too long and didn't give the generals what they wanted is a gross distortion of the facts.

The arguments against your arguments:

The troop request was always for 2010, not immediate, so the the claim Obama was dithering is ignorant of the facts.

Obama is trying to get the remaining 10,000 from our allies of which about 5,000 are now likely committed to. That makes us 5,000 short of the general's request, not 10,000 and the other 5,000 are still possible.


The Republics could care less about anything whatsoever except criticism of Obama. The ones in power and in the media are incapable for the most part of any kind of an intelligent assessment of the actual issues or facts. Spin the criticism, facts don't matter.

[Undesired Walrus]

Obama's lost Moore. (http://www.michaelmoore.com/)

[Cynic]

Tragic. ;)

[dudalb]

Obama's lost Moore. (http://www.michaelmoore.com/)

Obama will not miss him.
Moore's rant was pretty typical. No mention of why we went in, and he hand waves away any idea that Al Qaida and Islamic Extremism might pose any threat to the US. And Moore does not purpose any alternative course of action; just pull out.

[Brainster]

If he lives up to what he said in that speech, I will be pleased. It was mostly a fine speech, although I admit I skipped the whole section on why this will not be another Vietnam, since it was not aimed at me.

[Undesired Walrus]

He's better off without him, to be honest.

Not that I expect my opinion to be worth anything, but I don't honestly have any idea what the hell is going to work. I understand pulling out would surrender the Afghan people to the mercy of the Taliban, but I don't see how the United States can better the Soviet's action in that region. It feels a bit like a movie, and the next 18 months will be the final act, a showdown with terror.

Whatever the case, the Afghan people deserve better after decades of war.

[Skeptic]

The National Review right now has a very interesting analysis (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2UzYzhlYWQ0YWRjNDAzMDc3NjE0NmE5MzdiNzljNTk=). They are no fans of Obama, but they are NOT conspiratorial about him. When he does right, in their view, they say so openly. Their reaction to the speech is that the speech as a speech was a flop (too long, confused, etc.) but that that is not important -- what's important is that the policy suggested is good. Fair enough, I think.

[Dragoonster]

The National Review right now has a very interesting analysis (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2UzYzhlYWQ0YWRjNDAzMDc3NjE0NmE5MzdiNzljNTk=). They are no fans of Obama, but they are NOT conspiratorial about him. When he does right, in their view, they say so openly. Their reaction to the speech is that the speech as a speech was a flop (too long, confused, etc.) but that that is not important -- what's important is that the policy suggested is good. Fair enough, I think.

Eh, they spend most of the article bashing him. A sample of their non-conspiratorial "analysis":

Still, it’s obvious that Obama’s heart isn’t in the Afghan war and that he’s therefore incapable of communicating the depth of commitment appropriate when sending men and women into harm’s way. His base turned on the war as soon as it lost its usefulness as a campaign talking point, and Obama never had any intention of becoming a war president. He cares most about his domestic project of making us a Western European-style social democracy; there’s always another $1 trillion to spend, another massive government intervention to champion.

But sure, they do agree the policy is okay. I agree it might be okay, but there are many details left unanswered, which have been raised in the thread.

One point I certainly take issue with:

And it speaks to a worrisome impatience — and sensitivity to the political calendar — in an endeavor that requires time and an iron stomach.

No amount of patience or troops will solve anything if the overall strategy is flawed, which it has been and may still be. Calling a standstill and quagmire and neglect of eight years "patience" is being very generous. With patience like that, every new administration will be very slightly tweaking troop numbers and priorites in Afghanistan for the next 100 years.

Impatience on the other hand could lead to actual resolution. So I'm all for impatience.

[Policenaut]

What resolution? Afghanistan seems to be a lose-lose proposition no matter what we do. The outcome seems predetermined. We will leave and the Taliban (with a good dose of propaganda such as "We beat the USA and the world") will return to power. The Afghan army is a joke as in the current govt. which will certainly fall as soon as US/NATO forces leave. So essentially we are back where we started.

[Dragoonster]

What resolution? Afghanistan seems to be a lose-lose proposition no matter what we do. The outcome seems predetermined. We will leave and the Taliban (with a good dose of propaganda such as "We beat the USA and the world") will return to power. The Afghan army is a joke as in the current govt. which will certainly fall as soon as US/NATO forces leave. So essentially we are back where we started.

Resolution is ending the war and allowing the government to stand or fail--recognizing that we've done about as much as we were able and can't solve everything. The alternative is annexation or centuries of occupation. I didn't mean a winning resolution. Or one that ensures we won't be back there in 20 years to do the invade--regime change--leave cycle again. That'll be up to the Afghans. Our point has been made to any country--harbor those who attack us and you'll be invaded and regime-changed. Demonstrating that point is enough of a victory, if you want a winning spin.

Long-term resolution is reducing reasons radical Islamists want to attack us, which won't happen via any particular war. Only foreign policy change will bring a permanent resolution.

[Luntoc]

Check out what some New World Order crackpots have to say.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/media-hails-obamas-call-for-new-world-order-global-citizenry-common-humanity.html

As we all know, Obama is part of the new world order.

[Peephole]

It's a speech. None of his pronouncements were much of a surprise.
I'm referring to his decision to not pull out of Afghanistan. You know, the topic of the speech.

[dudalb]

I'm referring to his decision to not pull out of Afghanistan. You know, the topic of the speech.


SO handing Afghanistan back to the Taliban and their Al Qaida allies is Fine and Dandy with you?
Guaranteed, if the Taliaban gets back in we will have to go back in a couple of years later.

[Undesired Walrus]

SO handing Afghanistan back to the Taliban and their Al Qaida allies is Find and Dandy with you?

See this is the problem I have with the debate. I understand that this is very likely to occur without the presence of foriegn troops, but there never seems to be much beyond: "We can't pull out and leave them to the Taliban". Is it likely that there will be substantial improvements with foriegn troops, or is it just a butt plug for a rather forceful feces such as the Taliban? The moment the plug comes out, the **** spreads throughout.

The only possible conclusion that is even remotely positive is a well trained Afghan army yet with an incredibly corrupt and brutal Government. As Obama liked to say about Iraq: "There are no good options, only bad options".

Is that what we're looking at here?

[Peephole]

Oh, I have no problem with the U.S. attacking Al Qaeda. Propping up Karzai indefinitely, however, is something completely different.

[Darth Rotor]

I'm referring to his decision to not pull out of Afghanistan. You know, the topic of the speech.
It would have been nice if you'd bother to make that clear rather than offering us an imprecise foam at the mouth.

However, taking you at your word:

Choosing not to withdraw, worst thing he's done ... for whom? I can at the moment count but a single gutless Belgian for whom it is the worst thing he's done.

DR

[Sporanox]

Oh, I have no problem with the U.S. attacking Al Qaeda. Propping up Karzai indefinitely, however, is something completely different.

So you want to US to pull out?

[Darth Rotor]

Oh, I have no problem with the U.S. attacking Al Qaeda. Propping up Karzai indefinitely, however, is something completely different.
OK, your issue is with Karzai. You are making an assumption, that he'll be propped up indefinitely.

Why do you make this assumption? Any facts, or just more hyperbole?

DR

[dudalb]

And I am no fan of Karzai, but if the Afghan Government falls the Taliaban/Al Qaida is back in. There is, at least for the moment, no viable third alternative.Maybe over the next couple of years one will emerge.
And you have to consider the impact this would have in Pakistan. If the Islamic Fundies get control of Pakistan,they get control of Nukes, and they will use them..probably on India.

[dudalb]

It would have been nice if you'd bother to make that clear rather than offering us an imprecise foam at the mouth.

However, taking you at your word:

Choosing not to withdraw, worst thing he's done ... for whom? I can at the moment count but a single gutless Belgian for whom it is the worst thing he's done.

DR


A real problem I have with a lot of Europeans on the Left is the way they play ostrich to the problem of Islamic Extremism. It's like the US Right wing reaction to Global Warming..because dealing with it would require measures that does not fit in with their ideology, they prefer to pretend the problem does not exist.or minimize it to the point where there is not much difference between denying the problem.

[JihadJane]

War of necessity, my ass!

[Darth Rotor]

War of necessity, my ass!
I note the breath holding, but have you turned blue yet?

DR

[Piggy]

He announced a surge of 30,000 troops while including a time-line for withdrawals! Setting time-lines is a bad idea in almost any war, but especially a counter-insurgency. He might as well have said "Hear that, Taliban? All you gotta do is wait us out for 18 months." And they will.

I'm getting real tired of this false argument.

First, these guys don't seem content to wait out anything except the winter.

But more to the point, every decision has to be considered in the face of alternatives.

If we keep things open-ended, they'll simply continue with an attrition strategy -- hit and retreat, hit and retreat, hit and retreat.

They know that if they do this long enough, we'll run out of money, fresh troops, and popular support.

For every strategy we undertake, there is a counter-strategy. That's just the reality of it.

At least Obama has the balls to face that reality and not pretend that tough talk can translate into victory. At least he's dealing with the reality of limited time and resources.

Our enemies know this as well as we do. We can pretend otherwise, but we're not fooling anybody.

Yes, it's risky. But the fact is, we cannot attempt a permanent occupation.

It's best to tell the local forces that we intend to transition over, and they need to step up.

And of course, if conditions on the ground change, we can always scrap our current strategy for a new one. It's happened before.

[Piggy]

Obama also pretended that Al Qaeda and the Taliban are one and the same. Simply not true.

You obviously did not hear the same speech I did. I never heard him conflate the two.

[Piggy]

To compound this insanity, the new Afghan war plan calls for US/NATO forces to focus on securing the top 10 urban centers in the country as well as a few agricultural areas.

If this urban-based strategy sounds familiar, it's probably because it's exactly what the Soviets did!


You misunderstand the strategy.

The marching orders for the different regions are not the same.

That's actually where this strategy makes some sense. They're making meaningful distinctions between the Pashtun zones and other zones. They're not treating the country as if it were homogenous.

My apologies if others have already dealt with this. I haven't read the entire downthread yet.

[Piggy]

Their reaction to the speech is that the speech as a speech was a flop (too long, confused, etc.)

They're wrong about that. Rhetorically, it was superb.

[Dragoonster]

A real problem I have with a lot of Europeans on the Left is the way they play ostrich to the problem of Islamic Extremism. It's like the US Right wing reaction to Global Warming..because dealing with it would require measures that does not fit in with their ideology, they prefer to pretend the problem does not exist.or minimize it to the point where there is not much difference between denying the problem.

Aside from the hypothetical future nuclear weapons acquirement, drunk driving is a bigger problem to the West than Islamic extremism. In numbers of casualties, cost to society, pervasiveness, and destruction of property.

Just imagine the media and politicians and people around you suddenly stop talking about it except when there's an actual attack. Most would forget it even exists.

And since overhyping it leads to invasions like Iraq which add another generation to it, it would probably wiser to just ignore it. Or call it what it once was, a regional problem, which it'll likely return to if we stopped interferring with everyone. The Afghanistan War was justified as retaliation for an act of war, but that's all we should do militarily. To deal with it long-term we need to change our foreign policy to opposite of what it currently is.

At least that's my super-lefty mode. I wouldn't call it appeasement or noninterventionism though, unless nations like Madagascar or Japan are also guilty of that. Most nations get along fine with ME countries and OPEC, getting what they need based on mutual respect for soveriegnty. And the occasional UN sanction.

[Darth Rotor]

You obviously did not hear the same speech I did. I never heard him conflate the two.
Actually, he did, though it was not all that obvious.

Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban
---
The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan.
--
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.

Also, FWIW, a rework of the Domino Theory is alive and well.
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.

I know you got this Piggy, but for those unclear about what he distilled it down to:
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.
That last is a direct linkage to the Taliban problem in Pakistan. So while Al Q is still a core problem, he has us fighting the Taliban not just in Afghanistan, but in Pakistan as well.

You can argue that he named two different enemies, but the valid point CHF was making was related to his decision to use the same old rhetoric:

The struggle against violent extremism
as well as
al Qaeda and its allies

This rhetorical decision lends some weight to the critique that he tied the two together rather than being very explicit in how to address the two different threats, both to Afghanistan and anyone else, our friends included.

Maybe I am hair splitting, but this is a thread for critique of his speech. :)

That the military in Afghanistan are painfully aware of the differences between the two should not be news. I am sure the President's been briefed on the differences, and grasps most of the distinctions. He didn't reflect that understanding very well in what he said.

DR

[Piggy]

Actually, he did, though it was not all that obvious.

Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban
---
The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan.
--
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.


I'm not seeing it. I don't see a conflation there. Pointing to contacts and cooperation is not the same as confusing the two entities.

I don't believe Obama is either confused about the identities and goals of these two groups or trying to confuse the public about them.

[Darth Rotor]

I don't believe Obama is either confused about the identities and goals of these two groups or trying to confuse the public about them.
I am sure you are right on the first half, but "trying to confuse" isn't what I think was going on. Due to past association and conflation, his use of old rhetoric did nothing to represent to the public the important distinction between two similar (Islamist) but different (national versus extranational) groups. By recycling the old rhetoric he leaves the old habit of conflation uncorrected.

IMO, it was an important detail missed, and IMO a necessary detail, due to too many years of the mixing and matching in White House rhetoric of various extremist parties as "our enemy" in a unified sense.

Yes, I think it is on him to undo some of the damage already done to the clarity of public debate. An opportunity missed, albeit a somewhat technical one. Also one I may be more sensitive to than the general public.

The way I see the sound bytes, "struggle against violent extremism" is simply recycled code for "war on terror" and "they are all one enemy" thinking.

DR

[Piggy]

That last is a direct linkage to the Taliban problem in Pakistan. So while Al Q is still a core problem, he has us fighting the Taliban not just in Afghanistan, but in Pakistan as well.

I believe you're misreading the speech.

I have yet to see this administration get the basics wrong on that point.

Let's look at his specific references to Taliban:

they [AQ] 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

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

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.

Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban

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

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.

I don't see any confusion between AQ and Taliban here.

[Piggy]

I am sure you are right on the first half, but "trying to confuse" isn't what I think was going on. Due to past association and conflation, his use of old rhetoric did nothing to represent to the public the important distinction between two similar (Islamist) but different (national versus extranational) groups. By recycling the old rhetoric he leaves the old habit of conflation uncorrected.

IMO, it was an important detail missed, and IMO a necessary detail, due to too many years of the mixing and matching in White House rhetoric of various extremist parties as "our enemy" in a unified sense.

Yes, I think it is on him to undo some of the damage already done to the clarity of public debate. An opportunity missed, albeit a somewhat technical one. Also one I may be more sensitive to than the general public.

The way I see the sound bytes, "struggle against violent extremism" is simply recycled code for "war on terror" and "they are all one enemy" thinking.

DR

I think you're asking for too much.

In a speech, you have to decide what to present in the time you have without losing your audience.

There was no way he could get into the deep background.

Seems to me he did a good job of keeping the two players "in different shirts", so to speak.

[Darth Rotor]

I believe you're misreading the speech. I have yet to see this administration get the basics wrong on that point.
We are seeing this through slightly different lenses, and your read of it is a reasonable one.

DR

[Piggy]

Also, FWIW, a rework of the Domino Theory is alive and well.

Dominoes with nuclear weapons.

Now, it's true that if we were to simply devolve entirely from the area, and from the Muslim world, then they'd forget about us.

I don't buy for a second the argument that "they hate our freedoms" or that we must fight them there or they'll come and fight us here.

But given that we cannot entirely disengage from the Muslim world, do you really believe that it is not in our national security interest to check violent Islamic fundamentalist extremism in the Near East?

[Darth Rotor]

I think you're asking for too much.
I demand a lot of the suits, and am frequently disappointed. Since their decisions get people important to me killed, I am not very charitable with information war mistakes. One of my major frustrations with President Bush was the continued self inflicted wounds we suffered due to his, and his team's, poor info war skills.
In a speech, you have to decide what to present in the time you have without losing your audience.
100% agree. Cut a few of the platitudes. Put in more meat. ;)

There was no way he could get into the deep background.
Three sentences max to clearly describe the distinction between the two problems. Al Q can pick up and move elsewhere, Taliban is practically bound to Afgh/Pak AOR.

DR

[Piggy]

We are seeing this through slightly different lenses

Well, ok.

But I gotta say, DR, sometimes you really chap my ass because it's much easier to disagree with nutjobs, and you always insist on being reasonable and informed even when we disagree.

What a pain! ;)

[Piggy]

I demand a lot of the suits, and am frequently disappointed. Since their decisions get people important to me killed, I am not very charitable with information war mistakes.

<snip>

Three sentences max to clearly describe the distinction between the two problems. Al Q can pick up and move elsewhere, Taliban is practically bound to Afgh/Pak AOR.

Ok, point taken.

And may I say, we civilians are also seeing those we love coming home escorted by motorcades.

Two in the last month here.

The place I work is right by the local airport. When a local boy is brought back under a flag, that's where he lands.

They announce it over the PA, and we all go out to the road and pay our respects.

[Darth Rotor]

Now, it's true that if we were to simply devolve entirely from the area, and from the Muslim world, then they'd forget about us.
Not a practical consideration.
I don't buy for a second the argument that "they hate our freedoms" or that we must fight them there or they'll come and fight us here.
Curious, since Pres Obama cited a number of persons arrested/caught who were from over there. ;) "They hate us for our freedoms" was one of a mountain of rotten sound bytes from the Bush era, I'm not keen on their being recycled, no matter the reduction in carbon footprint. :D
But given that we cannot entirely disengage from the Muslim world
Correct.
Do you really believe that it is not in our national security interest to check violent Islamic fundamentalist extremism in the Near East?
Where did you get the impression that I felt that way, or said anything remotely related to that? :confused::confused:

Dealing with Islamists is something we have to do. I was one of many dealing with them in the 1980's, operationally, long before most Americans gave a flying fart.

We can't avoid dealing with Islamists. They have chosen to play in the big game.

Turning as many of them as can be found into shredded flesh and splintered bone is a pretty decent way ahead, but it's not the only piece of the solution set. There's a whole non-kinetic realm of action necessary to deal with it. He gave us few details on that, but stated that it was item two of his three item list.

DR

[Piggy]

Curious, since Pres Obama cited a number of persons arrested/caught who were from over there. ;)

No no, I'm talking about motives.

I'm talking about the myth that they're motivated by hatred of our way of life, rather than a desire for power in their own land, which is hindered in part by our presence.

I'm talking about the myth that they hate us specifically because of who we are, and would have a motivation to engage us on our home soil even if we were not involved in any way in their region of the globe.

If we were entirely disengaged from the region, they could give a rat's ass about our freedoms.

[Piggy]

Where did you get the impression that I felt that way, or said anything remotely related to that?

Ok, must've been a misreading on my part.

Perhaps I'm conditioned to interpret things that way, given that it's the dominant discourse among the armchair warriors where I live.

[Darth Rotor]

Ok, point taken.

And may I say, we civilians are also seeing those we love coming home escorted by motorcades.

Two in the last month here.

The place I work is right by the local airport. When a local boy is brought back under a flag, that's where he lands.

They announce it over the PA, and we all go out to the road and pay our respects.
Thanks, from the bottom of my heart. The small kindnesses we, as people, can do for one another are what make the world a little bit better.

DR

[Piggy]

The small kindnesses we, as people, can do for one another are what make the world a little bit better.

A little bit better, hell.

It's all that makes living worthwhile.

[Darth Rotor]

I'm talking about the myth that they're motivated by hatred of our way of life, rather than a desire for power in their own land, which is hindered in part by our presence.
Not the conversation we were having, though. ;)
I'm talking about the myth that they hate us specifically because of who we are,
Some do, because who we are is something they can't avoid due to globalization and "the world" shrinking, but that isn't how the message/myth you (and I) dislike was presented. Oddly enough, who they are is something we can't avoid, for the same reason. :cool:
and would have a motivation to engage us on our home soil even if we were not involved in any way in their region of the globe. If we were entirely disengaged from the region, they could give a rat's ass about our freedoms.
Aye, in some respects, some of the more virulent would like like to be left alone to kill one another.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

A little bit better, hell.

It's all that makes living worthwhile.
Seems you and I turned this thread into the Darth/Piggy chatroom. :D Nice talking to you, the missus is calling.

DR

[CHF]

All this rhetoric about fighting in Afghanistan to protect us from Al Qaeda is rubbish for a few reasons that are unfortunately rarely discussed.

Al Qaeda is a small player in Afghanistan at this point. The current Taliban insurgency a tribal/nationalist war against what they see as a foreign occupation propped up by their northern ethnic rivals.

Al Qaeda doesn't need Afghanistan for a "base" and never did. A few rooms in Hamburg or London is enough from which to launch terror attacks.

Ever seen what those much-feared "Al Qaeda training camps" actually look like? Ever seen their training videos? Their camps are no different than the kind of militia bases you find in any war zone: guys practice shooting, bomb-making, planting IEDs, staging ambushes etc. There are no flight simulators in these camps, or anything else that was crucial for 9/11 to happen - for that they came (legally) to the US.

Heck, the last six years in Iraq have training more jihadists than those camps ever could.

At this point we're in Afghanistan to prop up one group of brutal warlords against another group of brutal warlords. None of them care for human rights, all of them hate women, and none of them are worth the blood of a single NATO soldier.

It's time we leave the Afghans to their own devices. If that means civil war and mass deaths, then so be it. After all, we didn't suddenly care about Afghans during the carnage of 1992-2001, did we? So let's not pretend we give a damn now.

If we want to protect ourselves from terror attack, we can start by ditching the Saudis and their wahabbi mosque financing. It was no coincidence that 15 of 19 hijackers were Saudis.

[Piggy]

If we want to protect ourselves from terror attack, we can start by ditching the Saudis and their wahabbi mosque financing. It was no coincidence that 15 of 19 hijackers were Saudis.

Yeah, good luck with that.

[Skeptic Ginger]

The Taliban did harbor Bin Laden. Other than that, Obama did not equate the two.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Seems you and I turned this thread into the Darth/Piggy chatroom. :D Nice talking to you, the missus is calling.

DRMaybe you should honor my request and reread my post that you replied to suggesting you totally distorted what I said.

[Darth Rotor]

Maybe you should honor my request and reread my post that you replied to suggesting you totally distorted what I said.
I read it once. I responded. You gave no evidence of reading my entire response, part of which included my agreement with you on a couple of ponts? Indeed, you gave evidence of going off in a snit about two paragraphs in.

You do not have clean hands here. My response, in detail, was in post #23.
Your lazy bilge in response to that cited a small portion of my post:

"Just pulling out?" Where is that in his speech? Please consider, in this thread, your own critique of his speech rather than your critique of somebody else's analysis or spin.
A signal of your mental laziness
[snipped the reply to imaginary comments]
And a smart arsed remark.
Please try again and take off your, "I know what she wrote without reading it glasses", thank you.
Your indignation is self inflicted. Why not go back to post 23, see where we have common ground and disagreement, and restart from there.

@ CHF: leaving Afghanistan is one course of action, which does hold the risk of 1) taliban restored to power and 2) potential for any number of extranational groups to set up shop in "the wild west" regions there or in Pakistan.

On the other hand, it is possible that if the Taliban restore themselves to power, we can show them how it is in their interest not to support or condone such groups, with the implied threat that we'll come and hammer them again if they don't. Velvet glove over the mailed fist, and all that. Don't know if Pres Obama can make that sort of threat credible, too early to tell.

DR

[DDWW]

What is the exit strategy of this thread? Do we go on for 18 more replies and then quit? Should it depend on what is accomplished by the replies?

I say if we resolve the issue in 18 replies we stop this subject, otherwise we keep going for as long as it takes!

DD (did I leave enough “outs”?)WW

[jammonius]

[QUOTE=CHF;5370449]
Al Qaeda is a small player in Afghanistan at this point. The current Taliban insurgency a tribal/nationalist war against what they see as a foreign occupation propped up by their northern ethnic rivals.

Al Qaeda doesn't need Afghanistan for a "base" and never did. A few rooms in Hamburg or London is enough from which to launch terror attacks.

Ever seen what those much-feared "Al Qaeda training camps" actually look like? Ever seen their training videos? Their camps are no different than the kind of militia bases you find in any war zone: guys practice shooting, bomb-making, planting IEDs, staging ambushes etc. There are no flight simulators in these camps, or anything else that was crucial for 9/11 to happen - for that they came (legally) to the US.
[QUOTE]

In choosing to quote former President Eisenhower in his speech, President Obama added insult to injury by NOT quoting Eisenhower's "military-industrial-complex" (MIC) warning. That is the quote from Eisenhower that should have been relied upon forpurposes of terminating, not escalating, the warring in Afghanistan.

As noted above, the "threat" posed by the interchangeable factions knwon as "the Taliban" and "al Qaeda" are small, amorphous and not at all impacted by $30billion of annual military expenditure. On the otherhand, however, the MIC has a strong desire to extend and expand existing wars and then always have new ones brewing to protect their interests. Indeed, did any of you happen to catch the pfropaganda on CNBC just yesterday drumming up militarism against Iran because "Iran has nuclear weapons" and "Iran is our enemy"?

Obama had caved in to the MIC on Afghanistan a mere 1 day earlier. The MIC's appetite for warring is clearly insatiable as evidenced by the drum beat against Iran the very next day.

The issue here, imho, is the MIC and the interests thereof.

[Darth Rotor]

What is the exit strategy of this thread?
Victory! (Whatever the heck that means).
Should it depend on what is accomplished by the replies?
Curious use of the term "accomplished" there. :D
I say if we resolve the issue in 18 replies we stop this subject, otherwise we keep going for as long as it takes!
Who died and made you Caliph? :confused: :)

[Cynic]

I dunno. After it turned into the Piggy & Darth show I forgot what the subject was. :)

One of the blog sites I started frequenting during the last election cycle and sort of never stopped has a little thing on the plotical implications of Obama's plan. I like 538 because while there's an undeniable left-leaning "attitude" there, their insistance on statistical analysis and full disclosure goes a long way toward avoiding actual bias.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/speech-isnt-story.html

The gist of the entry is wondering at the intentions of the plan, if he's putting the withdrawl timeline just to appease liberals or what. The thought process ultimately lends credibility to Obama, IMO, because if he makes this "promise" and reality prevents it he looks worse than if he never made that promise in the first place. The article suggested that might indicate that announcing this kind of plan might be politically short-sighted, but my read on Obama is that he's a fairly sincere guy, willing to state his real intentions and take the lumps if he has to back out of it.

[BeAChooser]

my read on Obama is that he's a fairly sincere guy, willing to state his real intentions and take the lumps if he has to back out of it.

LOL!

[Skeptic Ginger]

I read it once. I responded. You gave no evidence of reading my entire response, part of which included my agreement with you on a couple of ponts? Indeed, you gave evidence of going off in a snit about two paragraphs in. [blah blah blah]

DRI find the progressives' criticism of the speech disappointing. On the one hand the mess that made the whole situation worse occurred because we funded/supported the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan then just pulled out when the Soviets left. The Taliban took over after that. So how can just pulling out be the right answer this time?

"Just pulling out?" Where is that in his speech? Please consider, in this thread, your own critique of his speech rather than your critique of somebody else's analysis or spin.
Clearly this answer shows you didn't read what I wrote but made up in your mind what I said based on your imagination. So now you gripe that I pointed out your mis-read by whining it wasn't a big deal. Nice.


I agree with Stephanie Miller's comment tonight after the speech, as a liberal I am against war in general but as a woman I am against the Taliban. There was a struggle to free the oppressed women in Afghanistan long before 911 and I for one have not forgotten that. The Taliban's treatment of women cannot be allowed to resume.
I hear an echo of Hillary Clinton, mid 1990's. From what you wrote there, you feel we should spend our blood and treasure on women's liberation, world wide. Is that your preferred expenditure of our blood and treasure, cultural imperialism? Where changes have come, the world over, in the status of women, it has not generally come at the point of American bayonets. The change comes from exposure to more modern social models, and from within the society in question.
It would appear you are totally unaware of the struggle against the Taliban's treatment of women that began years before 9-11-01.

Journalist Saira Shah: Life in Afghanistan under the Taliban (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/08/24/shah/)Aug 27, 2001
Saira Shah is a freelance journalist. She was born in Britain, of an Afghan family. She first visited Afghanistan at age 21 and worked there three years as a freelance journalist, covering the guerilla war against the Soviet occupiers. Later, working for Britain's Channel Four News, she covered some of the world's worst trouble spots.

CNN: Saira - tell us a bit about "Beneath the Veil" on CNN Presents this Sunday evening and why this story is so important to you.

SHAH: Well, the film is a story of a journey three of us made, me and two crew members, earlier in the year. It's important to me personally, because my family originally came from Afghanistan. What we tried to do was return to the area where my family came from, which I'd never seen before. I remember when I was a child, my father would tell me stories of a garden in the area where my family came from, and I was told it was the most beautiful place in the world, with fountains, fruit trees, and wonderful things. We thought we'd try to go there, and see what happened to it now, and understand along the way what's happening in Afghanistan.

Inside Afghanistan: Behind the veil (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1410061.stm)June 27, 2001
An undercover documentary film about the Taleban movement in Afghanistan has shown shocking footage of mass executions, and an insight into the oppression suffered by Afghan women.

Dressed in an Afghan veil, reporter Saira Shah used a hidden camera to film life for ordinary Afghans under the Taleban.
Inside Afghanistan: Behind the veil (http://www.rawa.org/channel4.htm) A summary of what's in the film.

Mavis Leno: Lives of Afghan women (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/11/09/leno.cnna/)Mavis Leno has been chair of the Feminist Majority Foundation's Campaign to Stop Gender Apartheid in Afghanistan since 1997. The wife of "Tonight Show" host Jay Leno, she has been a longtime outspoken critic of Taliban treatment of women. She currently is leading the effort to insure the restoration of women's rights in a post-Taliban Afghanistan.
Hollywood's Latest Cause (http://www.newsweek.com/id/90455/output/print)December 6, 1999
Afghanistan has become Hollywood's latest cause; Meryl Streep, Geena Davis, Sidney Poitier and Melissa Etheridge have all signed on. "Seventh Heaven" and "Family Law" recently devoted episodes to the issue. Building on the publicity generated by its celebrity supporters, the Feminist Majority has blanketed the White House and the State Department with 100,000 petitions, letters, e-mails and faxes.

Their demands: that the United States cut off aid to countries that recognize the Taliban, increase humanitarian assistance to Afghan women and fling open its doors to female Afghan refugees. "To have Leno and other celebrities involved in this cause makes a big difference," says Mary Diaz, director of the Women's Commission for Refugee Women and Children, a New York-based advocacy group.

Wiki: Taliban treatment of women (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban_treatment_of_women)Women were forced to wear the burqa in public, because, according to a Taliban spokesman, "the face of a woman is a source of corruption" for men not related to them.[3] They were not allowed to work, they were not allowed to be educated after the age of eight, and until then were permitted only to study the Qur'an. Women seeking an education were forced to attend underground schools such as the Golden Needle Sewing School, where they and their teachers risked execution if caught.[4][5] They were not allowed to be treated by male doctors unless accompanied by a male chaperone, which led to illnesses remaining untreated. They faced public flogging[6] and execution for violations of the Taliban's laws.[7][8] The Taliban allowed and in some cases encouraged marriage for girls under the age of 16. Amnesty International reported that 80 percent of Afghan marriages were considered to be by force.[9]



Obama's description of what makes this country great and what America really stands for, reflects my view of the world and what I wish this country actually did stand for. Unfortunately for that part of the speech, I found it full of untruths. Claiming we've never taken other countries' natural resources for ourselves was a lie. We've done it over and over. The US and Britain literally split the MidEast regions' oil resources between themselves in the 50s and that is where a lot of 'blowback' is coming from to this day.

If I may refer to Donald Sutherland (Odball) in Kelley's Heroes, we see here another case of "always with the negative waves, Moriarty." Your hair shirt is on order.
So you believe in the John Wayne fairly tale version of the US' history then?



But if Obama goes forward with that idealistic philosophy, that Americans are like John Wayne's portrayal of us in the old war movies, then I'm OK with the speech even knowing it was not true about us in the past. Afterall, if Obama would have spoken the truth the conservatives would have had way more than a cow about it. We'd of never heard the end that it was a blame America speech.
I am trying to grasp what value the American President accrues when he blames America, or dwells on our mistakes. Why do you choose to dwell on them?
Because I noted Obama included a false history of the US's involvement in other countries' affairs in this speech we are all discussing, I'm somehow dwelling on it? :rolleyes:



On another note, Cheney is insane. I think he may really be off his nut. Very disgusting crap came from him over the last few weeks. He needs to admit he screwed up or shut up.
This thread isn't about Dick Cheney. It is about what President Obama is doing, where he wants to go with this challenge based on what he told America and the world last night.

DR Well I chose to comment on Cheney whose been shooting his mouth off about Obama's Afghanistan measures. So sue me.

[Piggy]

What is the exit strategy of this thread? Do we go on for 18 more replies and then quit? Should it depend on what is accomplished by the replies?

I say if we resolve the issue in 18 replies we stop this subject, otherwise we keep going for as long as it takes!

DD (did I leave enough “outs”?)WW

We keep going until Christmas unless the situation in the database dictates otherwise.

[Darth Rotor]

It would appear you are totally unaware of the struggle against the Taliban's treatment of women that began years before 9-11-01.
No, I am very aware of it, and if you'd have bothered to read that bit in my post about the mid-late 90's policy of the US in re women's rights in Muslim nations (not just in Afghanistan, the issues arose in re Saudi and the Emirates as well) you'd have grasped that I was aware of how that was playing politically. My question to you returns: do you believe that we should spend our blood and treasure on that policy aim of women's rights? You might be comfortable with that policy aim gaining primacy. There are plenty of people who might be sympathetic to that evolution in US policy. Risks include the local impact of backlash, and charges of cultural imperialism. Put another way, should we impose democracy at the point of a bayonet? Should we impose equal rights at the point of a bayonet?

If you look at point two in President Obama's summary, there is to be a civilian surge. He was short on the details. I missed the Sec Def and Sec State's interrogation by Congress the following evening, as they went forth to sell/support the President's policy and decision. I therefore don't have a good grip on what that civilian surge entails, but I do know that for the last eight years, the enrollment of women/girls in schools has increased, though it has gone down in areas where the Taliban has reasserted control lately.
So you believe in the John Wayne fairly tale version of the US' history then?
Grow up. I am a hard pragmatist.
Because I noted Obama included a false history of the US's involvement in other countries' affairs in this speech we are all discussing, I'm somehow dwelling on it? :rolleyes:
Your dislike for that part of the speech and my "needs less filler" coincide for slightly different reasons: mine technical, yours emotional. He could have done without that.
Well I chose to comment on Cheney whose been shooting his mouth off about Obama's Afghanistan measures. So sue me.
This is about President Obama's speech, former VP Cheney's various utterances. Feel free to begin a thread on that.

DR

[IchabodPlain]

I haven't read the whole thread, so I apologize if this has already been brought up :)


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.


Obama did leave some wiggle room in the 18mo. time-line by including the caveat that this was predicated on conditions on the ground.

Setting a time-line sends a message to the Karzi government and the Afghan people that no, we're not going to be there indefinitely. Essentially, "You've got 18 months to clean up this ****pile before we start getting outa here and you're on your own."

[Lissa]

Obama's speech was naive, uninspiring, weak and misguided. Another setback for the president whose administration is setback-prone. Biggest blunder was in disclosing to the enemy the 18-month drawdown timeframe. They have been at this for 4,000 years--They can hold out for another 18 months standing on their heads. Amateur hour at the White House.

[tyr_13]

Obama's speech was naive, uninspiring, weak and misguided. Another setback for the president whose administration is setback-prone. Biggest blunder was in disclosing to the enemy the 18-month drawdown timeframe. They have been at this for 4,000 years--They can hold out for another 18 months standing on their heads. Amateur hour at the White House.

Who are 'they' who have been at this for 4,000 years? Did you even read the rest of the thread?

[Cynic]

Obama's speech was naive, uninspiring, weak and misguided. Another setback for the president whose administration is setback-prone. Biggest blunder was in disclosing to the enemy the 18-month drawdown timeframe. They have been at this for 4,000 years--They can hold out for another 18 months standing on their heads. Amateur hour at the White House.

(Rather conspicous number you've selected.)

How would you propose we slip out of Afghanistan overnight? Do you imagine the preparations for our leaving -- which would have to include warning the Afghani government and their reponse -- would somehow escape the Taliban's notice?

[Darth Rotor]

Obama's speech was naive, uninspiring, weak and misguided. Another setback for the president whose administration is setback-prone. ... snip ... Amateur hour at the White House.
*sigh* Ok, you offered a critique, but was this tripe necessary? I checked your profile.

Lissa has not made any friends yet

I don't expect that to change.
Biggest blunder was in disclosing to the enemy the 18-month drawdown timeframe. They have been at this for 4,000 years--They can hold out for another 18 months standing on their heads.
The Taliban are probably aware of internal US conflict, and various criticism of the escalation strategy in Afghanistan. Continuing to pay for foreign wars is in conflict with other US policy aims, many of them domestic. So yes, they can now, and could two years ago when Bush was president, opt to play the long game in the hopes of the US eventually getting tired of the cost and trouble of that foreign involvement.

The "surge" strategy in a less cohesive place than Iraq probably has higher risks than it did in Iraq, and IMO, it is premature to call that surge anything more than a temporary success in Iraq.

Afghanistan has been an eocnomy of force since the spring of 2003. Taliban have taken advantage of that. It is about to become something far different. Can they adapt, since this time, Pakistan is now actively engaged in pressuring the Taliban (and other Islamists) in Pakistan? Don't know. Pakistan was always a safe haven in the Soviet era, but it is becoming far less so, which renders some of the "look what happened to the Russians" irrelevant at the strategic and practical level.

That is the single significant difference between the first six years and the last two to three: a far more robust cross border effort from Pakistan on the Taliban's "safe haven" that they could, as could Al Qaeda, retreat to when US pressure got to be too much in Afghanistan.

Is this effort going to be sufficient? Don't know. I suggest you revisit President Obama's points on how he intends to work with Pakistan on this. That kind of cooperation (like allowing cross border strikes by drones, and indeed, an increase in this manner of terrorist hunt and kill tactics) has been common since about mid-2008 -- it was absent for years from Pakistan.

However, it ain't all sun and roses, with Pakistan. India backs Karzai. This does not make Pakistan happy. No two ways about it, Karzai is part of the geo-strategic problem. So too is India. (Recent Economist article on Pakistan has a good treatment on the India/Pakistan tension influencing what goes on in Afghanistan). He may be a turd that cannot be polished.

No matter what his speech proclaimed, the challenge President Obama has in getting India and Pakistan to play well together is a key piece to any success in Afghanistan.

DR

[Ziggurat]

Anyone here ever heard of Bill Whittle? He's one of my favorite commentators, of a conservative bent. His latest is partly about Obama's Afghanistan speech/policy, for which he offers some criticism but mostly approval. But what he spends most of his time on is a few of Obama's high-profile supporters who don't seem thrilled by it, and he lays into them pretty harshly. Quite entertaining for me, though your mileage may vary:
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=video&video-id=2784

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, I am very aware of it, and if you'd have bothered to read that bit in my post about the mid-late 90's policy of the US in re women's rights in Muslim nations (not just in Afghanistan, the issues arose in re Saudi and the Emirates as well) you'd have grasped that I was aware of how that was playing politically. My question to you returns: do you believe that we should spend our blood and treasure on that policy aim of women's rights? You might be comfortable with that policy aim gaining primacy. There are plenty of people who might be sympathetic to that evolution in US policy. Risks include the local impact of backlash, and charges of cultural imperialism. Put another way, should we impose democracy at the point of a bayonet? Should we impose equal rights at the point of a bayonet?I'm not aware Hilary Clinton was ever involved directly in the movement to draw attention to the Taliban's treatment of women. Mavis Leno and the woman who made the documentary were on the forefront of bringing the cruelty to the world's attention. Like I said, your post suggests you were not aware of the specific movement before 9-11-01. If you were, you wouldn't have mentioned Clinton.

But more than that, the Taliban's treatment of women went waaaay beyond just the usual Muslim country travesty. In some countries you have specific problems like burning wives and throwing acid on women who are going to school. In Afghanistan under the Taliban, cruelty to women became their obsession. This was not a problem like all others as you seem to think.


...Grow up. I am a hard pragmatist. This part of our exchange started with you making a false accusation that I was dwelling on some blame America tripe, when in fact I was commenting on a specific statement in Obama's speech. Why would you ignore a major historical influence like the long history of manipulating the natural resources of other countries? Don't you think it's a little bit foolish to think our history doesn't matter? Think the people in countries where we moved in and took the resources are going to brush it off as easily as you do?

I think it's important to start with the facts, not the fairy tale.

...Your dislike for that part of the speech and my "needs less filler" coincide for slightly different reasons: mine technical, yours emotional. He could have done without that. ...
DRGet over yourself, my opinions are no more nor less emotionally based than yours. I find the claim in Obama's speech that the US has never taken the resources of another country to be factually wrong. It was the fact that the claim was wrong that I was commenting on.

[Dr Adequate]

Obama's speech was naive, uninspiring, weak and misguided. Another setback for the president whose administration is setback-prone. Biggest blunder was in disclosing to the enemy the 18-month drawdown timeframe. They have been at this for 4,000 years--They can hold out for another 18 months standing on their heads. Amateur hour at the White House. So did everyone with an axe to grind make the same mistake independently, or are they regurgitating the stupid-of-the-week off talk radio?

[KoihimeNakamura]

I'm not aware Hilary Clinton was ever involved directly in the movement to draw attention to the Taliban's treatment of women. Mavis Leno and the woman who made the documentary were on the forefront of bringing the cruelty to the world's attention. Like I said, your post suggests you were not aware of the specific movement before 9-11-01. If you were, you wouldn't have mentioned Clinton.

But more than that, the Taliban's treatment of women went waaaay beyond just the usual Muslim country travesty. In some countries you have specific problems like burning wives and throwing acid on women who are going to school. In Afghanistan under the Taliban, cruelty to women became their obsession. This was not a problem like all others as you seem to think.


Question, not answered. Are you okay with imposing what you think is correct morally at the edge of a bayonet?


Get over yourself, my opinions are no more nor less emotionally based than yours. I find the claim in Obama's speech that the US has never taken the resources of another country to be factually wrong. It was the fact that the claim was wrong that I was commenting on.

I dunno. An objection that Obama didn't acknowledge the truth is.. um.. sure, valid. But your way of saying it.. isn't.

[Peephole]

OK, your issue is with Karzai. You are making an assumption, that he'll be propped up indefinitely.

Why do you make this assumption? Any facts, or just more hyperbole?

DR
Because that's the strategy, keep the guy you like in place, because those you don't like are a possible threat. This is per definition an indefinite strategy, because the Taliban is a political movement that's not going to dissapear any time soon. There will always be the risk that they'll return to power, which in the U.S.'s mind necessitates keeping in power (with use of force if necessary) whoever opposes the Taliban.

[Peephole]

So you want to US to pull out?
I think the U.S.'s strategy should be limited to fighting Al Qaeda, not the Taliban.

The Taliban should be negotiated with, or simply ignored.

[Darth Rotor]

Because that's the strategy, keep the guy you like in place, because those you don't like are a possible threat. This is per definition an indefinite strategy, because the Taliban is a political movement that's not going to dissapear any time soon. There will always be the risk that they'll return to power, which in the U.S.'s mind necessitates keeping in power (with use of force if necessary) whoever opposes the Taliban.
Then why did the US support the recent election, which of course (no surprise) went south? Obviously, there was a risk that Karzai would lose. Sorry, your CT isn't standing up too well.

DR

[Peephole]

Then why did the US support the recent election, which of course (no surprise) went south? Obviously, there was a risk that Karzai would lose. Sorry, your CT isn't standing up too well.

DR
What does that have to do with anything? Conspiracy theory? And you accuse me of using hyperbole?

The U.S. doesn't want the Taliban in power, some conspiracy theory. :rolleyes:

[Darth Rotor]

What does that have to do with anything?
We agree that Karzai is a liability, and we agree that Taliban not in power is a US goal. What you asserted is that Karzai is in office indefinitely due to US desire that he remain so. If that wasn't your position, then please clear that up, given what you wrote that I responded to. Post #97. And I ask you again, why did the US put so much effort into supporting the election that Karzai was at risk of losing?

DR

[Ziggurat]

The Taliban should be negotiated with, or simply ignored.

The Taliban do not negotiate in good faith (and what do you think we could offer them anyways?), and since they continue to attack us, ignoring them is not an option.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Question, not answered. Are you okay with imposing what you think is correct morally at the edge of a bayonet?If it were about invading Afghanistan in the absence of 911, probably not. But if it is about walking away knowing the Taliban will re-emerge the same way they did when we walked away after the Soviets left, then yes, I think we need to stay militarily. The reason is we contributed a significant amount to the creation of the Taliban in the first place.

We supported the militant uprising when they were a thorn in the side to the Soviet occupation. When the Soviets pulled out, the Taliban in all their horrendous cruelty to women emerged.

But as to the focus of our soldiers in Afghanistan, it has to be an effort to build up the society so that there is no vacuum for the Taliban when we leave. This is what I have a little hope Obama has recognized though I am not certain. Currently the Taliban both within Afghanistan and Pakistan are recruiting and brainwashing young boys via the Madrassas. Poverty stricken kids get an education and food while being indoctrinated. (Similar to the missionary model mind you.) If we don't address that root, we will just be wasting our time.



I dunno. An objection that Obama didn't acknowledge the truth is.. um.. sure, valid. But your way of saying it.. isn't.My way of saying it? Is there some taboo against honesty here? I'm evil for speaking the truth about America's history? Wow!

[Darth Rotor]

If it were about invading Afghanistan in the absence of 911, probably not. But if it is about walking away knowing the Taliban will re-emerge the same way they did when we walked away after the Soviets left, then yes, I think we need to stay militarily. The reason is we contributed a significant amount to the creation of the Taliban in the first place.

We supported the militant uprising when they were a thorn in the side to the Soviet occupation. When the Soviets pulled out, the Taliban in all their horrendous cruelty to women emerged.
This is true, but it isn't why we went to war with them in 2001. We went to war with them due to their giving safe haven to Al Qaeda, and providing them material aid and support, and telling us to screw off. Bill Clinton shot a few Tomahawks into Afghanistsn, at Al Q training camps. At that point, any vestige of us/them connection from the Soviet era was pretty much dead. A pity that attack didn't find Bin Laden at home.
But as to the focus of our soldiers in Afghanistan, it has to be an effort to build up the society so that there is no vacuum for the Taliban when we leave.
Got it, nation building, which is a part of what's been going on since 2002. The President's speech suggests, in his "civilian surge" sound byte, that such activities will become more robust. You like, right?
This is what I have a little hope Obama has recognized though I am not certain. Currently the Taliban both within Afghanistan and Pakistan are recruiting and brainwashing young boys via the Madrassas. Poverty stricken kids get an education and food while being indoctrinated. (Similar to the missionary model mind you.) If we don't address that root, we will just be wasting our time.
True enough, but that was going on before Obama's time, and will be going on most likey after his time, and he probably hasn't a tool to stop that. Also not part of his speech. Pakistan policy has become the 800 pound gorilla in this room. I'll find you a link to a nice article on that, and India's influence. It's very interesting. Here: http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14984901
Is there some taboo against honesty here? I'm evil for speaking the truth about America's history?
No, your objection to Obama's rhetoric on that score is a reasonable critique of his speech.

DR

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is true, but it isn't why we went to war with them in 2001. We went to war with them due to their giving safe haven to Al Qaeda, and providing them material aid and support, and telling us to screw off. Bill Clinton shot a few Tomahawks into Afghanistsn, at Al Q training camps. At that point, any vestige of us/them connection from the Soviet era was pretty much dead. A pity that attack didn't find Bin Laden at home.The question was about military intervention solely for reasons the Taliban were so atrocious. My answer was about if it were hypothetical and we were not there yet, or based on the fact we are there. So the fact we invaded Afghanistan for another reason is not relevant to my answer.

Got it, nation building, which is a part of what's been going on since 2002. The President's speech suggests, in his "civilian surge" sound byte, that such activities will become more robust. You like, right? As for nation building since 2002, we weren't doing the kind of nation building under the Bush Presidency that was useful until almost the end of his term when it was obvious he had failed so miserably and he changed course. A civilian surge has to be Afghan or Iraqi civilian surge. Just bringing in foreign civilian contractors will not be helpful.

True enough, but that was going on before Obama's time, and will be going on most likey after his time, and he probably hasn't a tool to stop that. Also not part of his speech. Pakistan policy has become the 800 pound gorilla in this room. I'll find you a link to a nice article on that, and India's influence. It's very interesting. Here: http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14984901I'm not sure why it is relevant that the Madrassas were an established Taliban recruitment tool before Obama was elected. And I don't believe they are inevitable after we leave. If they are, in their current state anyway, we should leave now and not lose any more soldiers. You cannot change the problem if you do not address the roots of it.

So I ask you, were you aware of how much worse the Taliban were treating women from the usual regional poor treatment of women? Were you aware of Mavis Leno's campaign and/or had you seen the film, "Beneath the Veil" (http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/presents/index.veil.html) before 09-11-01?

[Darth Rotor]

So I ask you, were you aware of how much worse the Taliban were treating women
Yes, it was one of the reasons Afghanistan attracted attention as a failed state, and as an HR disaster, during the Clinton administration. The political climate in America didn't support doing much about it. There were other fish to fry, in the Balkans for example. I'd need to go back and check, but my memory tells me that the US was getting shirty with Pakistan at the time, over their HR issues among other things, and thus delayed the sale of F-16's to them. Also tabled transfer of some second hand frigates. Congressional block of an executive branch program.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/aircraft/f-16.htm
ETA: On the F-16 issue, it looks like Congress initially blocked in during Bush 41, and Pres Clinton was not able to move it forward, so they worked on a different deal. The frigates (Knox Class and Perry class) I recall being a sticking issue during early Clinton administration. My notes are not in electronic form, so it may not be worth digging up. I recall some of this due to the "failed states" research project I did during staff college. We addressed Afghanistan, Haiti, Mozambique, and Bangladesh. I focused on Haiti and Mozambique, my partner on the two in South Asia.

Seems the failed states list changes from time to time ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Failed_States_Index

That once again raises my question to you: do you feel it is a good use of our blood and treasure to pursue women's rights in, for example, Afghanistan?



DR

[Darth Rotor]

And as for Osama Bin Laden, someone thinks they know where he is, but they don't. Finding and killing him seems a good idea, still. This clipped from an AP story that cites Jones (Nat Sec Adviser) as having said Obama has been in and out of Afghanistan, basically moving between Afghanistan and Pakistan at various times.
During a visit to Pakistan in late October, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton caused a stir by chiding Pakistani officials for failing to press the hunt for al-Qaida inside their borders. She said she found it "hard to believe" that no one in Islamabad knows where the al-Qaida leaders are hiding and couldn't get them "if they really wanted to."

Gates said he could not confirm recent news reports that bin Laden had been seen in Afghanistan earlier this year. BBC News reported last week that a Taliban detainee in Pakistan claimed to have met in January or February with an unidentified associate who said he had seen bin Laden just days earlier in Afghanistan, possibly in Ghazni province.
Oddly enough, Osama Bin Laden was reported to be moving in and out of Pakistan and Afghanistan in 2004, when I was more involved with such things.

Trying not to be seen, and doing well.

If tomorrow morning he gets found and waxed, does that change anything in re the Taliban, and thus President Obama's chosen strategy?

DR

[Cynic]

And as for Osama Bin Laden, someone thinks they know where he is, but they don't. Finding and killing him seems a good idea, still. This clipped from an AP story that cites Jones (Nat Sec Adviser) as having said Obama has been in and out of Afghanistan, basically moving between Afghanistan and Pakistan at various times.

Oddly enough, Osama Bin Laden was reported to be moving in and out of Pakistan and Afghanistan in 2004, when I was more involved with such things.

Trying not to be seen, and doing well.

If tomorrow morning he gets found and waxed, does that change anything in re the Taliban, and thus President Obama's chosen strategy?

DR

I wouldn't expect it to make much difference. He's one man. Surely what we're up against is bigger than that.

[Darth Rotor]

I wouldn't expect it to make much difference. He's one man. Surely what we're up against is bigger than that.
Ya think? ;)

[BeAChooser]

Bet Osama is dead.

[Darth Rotor]

Bet Osama is dead.
From what? Lead poisoning? Kidney failure? Boredom? Fatigue from mountain climbing?

[Cynic]

From what? Lead poisoning? Kidney failure? Boredom? Fatigue from mountain climbing?

I think he died laughing.

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

If tomorrow morning he gets found and waxed, does that change anything in re the Taliban, and thus President Obama's chosen strategy?

DRIt would be a PR victory and a morale booster for our troops.

[Darth Rotor]

It would be a PR victory and a morale booster for our troops.

Agreed.

As others have noted, its change in re strategy for Taliban suppression, and dealing with Al Qaeda globally (they are not constrained to base themselves in Afghanistan) probably doesn't change much.

I'd still be pleased as punch for that waxing to occur.