home

Obama's Afghanistan Speech

Unfortunately, I won't be able to live blog the President's speech. (Can't speak for Jeralyn.) My full reactions won't come until tomorrow.

However, the NYTimes has some excerpts:

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.”

July 2011 exit date? the force buildup will not even be complete until May 2010. This seems unrealistic, not to say dishonest. A mistake from the President imo. He will not be able to keep his word on that and people will carp about it. The rest of the excerpt seems reasonable and right to me.

In addition, that the word "Pakistan" is not mentioned in the released excerpt is very disconcerting. Pakistan has to be at the center of the Afghanistan discussion. I'll need to see the whole speech but the excerpt seems shallow, empty and not addressing the totality of the problem. Perhaps the entire remarks are better.

More from me on this tomorrow.

Speaking for me only

< Without A Public Option, The "Reform" Part Of the Health Insurance Assistance Bill Is Worthless | Tuesday Night Open Thread: A Potpourri >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Is Obama starting to sound like (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 06:43:41 PM EST
    President "split the difference" or what?

    Maybe we should just rename the golden mean fallacy to "Obama."

    It's (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:05:48 PM EST
    called can't make a decision or trying to please everybody and ending up pleasing no one.

    Parent
    Thumbsuckers (none / 0) (#142)
    by kidneystones on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 10:52:00 PM EST
    Dallasdoc and Booman23 each have top-rated diaries expressing 'concern' and 'sympathy' for the poor, poor, folks in the Obama NS team.

    Governerning is Tuf!

    The US has been in Afghanistan for 8 years! The 'real war' was always supposed to be Afghanistan: see Clinton, Biden, Obama during the campaign.

    Get in or get out. It's that simple. The Brits, meanwhile, have committed firmly to a minimum of five more years with no exit date, according to the Guardian.

    Must be GOP operatives trying to make Dems look cynical.

    Parent

    I dislike Booman very much (none / 0) (#144)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 11:02:44 PM EST
    I think he is a huge jerk, but what he discusses that the NSC brought up is a very real ongoing threat.  If we all had SIPR accounts we'd know, but you and I don't get SIPR accounts.  I live with someone who has a SIPR account though and I'm signed on for this effort for six months on and six months off and six months on and six months off until that person is satisfied with the duty he has preformed.  He works a 12 hour shift every single day and has no day off until he comes home for leave. He never gives me details because he can't.  But he is my best friend, I know how he lives his life and I know the standards he does that by.  I didn't really want him in Afghanistan doing this without support and now he will have support.

    Parent
    This is based on . . . ? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Cream City on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 06:53:00 PM EST
    He hasn't speaking yet in my time zone!

    Parent
    Excerpt (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 06:56:15 PM EST
    30k Troops.

    Parent
    Yes, knew that. But 100,000+ troops (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Cream City on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:06:43 PM EST
    is the number to think about -- the total to be there now.

    On inauguration day 2009, fewer than 40,000 there.

    In February and March, the first Obama surge of 30,000.

    This second Obama surge, 30-35,000.  Total: 100,000+.

    A rampup unrivaled since LBJ's in 1964. . . .

    Parent

    +75.000 American mercenaries (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Cream City on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:46:00 PM EST
    aka contractors, says CNN.  

    We're going to be at 200,000 Americans in Afghanistan in a matter of months.  And all of them out in 18 months?  We'd have to start bringing them out soon, rather than sending more in there.

    And of course, once again, we will leave behind weaponry that the tribes will turn upon each other.

    Parent

    Be Careful (none / 0) (#127)
    by dissenter on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:57:28 PM EST
    Contractors are not just gunslingers. In fact, there are fewer of those in Afghanistan than you can imagine. Contractors cover everything from truck drivers, to USAID workers to almost everyone that works on a base (lots of civilians). In fact, most civilians working in-country suffer from a severe lack of security because we don't have the massive military bases over there that we do in Iraq. What we will build for these new deployments will be FOBs (very small). Most civilian contractors are living on a hope and a prayer.

    The tribes are already rearming. They have been for years. They are just waiting for us to leave to restart their war. The Pentagon's plan however to rearm the militias will make things much worse in the end.

    Parent

    One thing (none / 0) (#128)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 10:03:48 PM EST
    I've always wondered is how do you come in and fix something that's been dintegrating for years? i mean bush basically did nothing there because he wanted to be in Iraq and at this point has the situation become so set in that there's really nothing that can be done? I wondering if the window of opportunity, if there ever even was one, has passed for Afghanistan?

    Parent
    I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by dissenter on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 10:24:58 PM EST
    I think about that a lot actually. We wasted so much time but I think there probably was a chance at the beginning because the Taliban were so hated and everyone was tired of war. In the long run, I don't know. I had Afghans tell me the Soviets were better at aid and they still hated them lol. I know this though, it is too late now.

    Parent
    I know. I did not say that they (none / 0) (#131)
    by Cream City on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 10:10:48 PM EST
    are gunslingers.  I said that they are nonmilitary paid to be there.  And that they are Americans.

    And now you tell me they are Americans who are even less secure and more in danger than the troops.  This is even worse word.  Of course, we rarely get as much word of nonmilitary who die in wars, so maybe those fatalities will not bring on the fire this time.  

    Parent

    Defense of the Afghan election a mistake (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:10:59 PM EST
    You know, I don't disagree that we should try to stabilize Afghanistan, but I hope he can do a better job of defining the mission.

    Dear Taliban and US Allies (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by kidneystones on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:21:33 PM EST
    Wapo: "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."

    The President continued (whether he realized what he was actually saying is still unclear). "Therefore, I strongly advise our Taliban enemies and their Al Quaida fellow-travelers to concentrate on training, recruitment, and funding in preparation for your final assault on Kabul in December of 2011. Call it Tet for maximum propaganda value.

    Advise the most dedicated to enlist in the Afghan security forces where they will be able to provide up to the minute intelligence on US and Afghan forces, as well as to recruit among the Afghan forces, advising all waverers to look to their long-term interests.

    To our allies, you well understand the political jam I'm in. My base is irate over my failure to provide jobs, my hand-outs to my rich bundlers, my failure to get a public option into 'health-care reform', for squandering a unique opportunity to truly transform America, and for generally being a mirror-loving wimp. I naturally disagree with this assessment. That said, I can't afford to have Republicans paint me as weak. I can't close Gitmo, can't withdraw the troops from Iraq as promised, so I have to do stand by my 'war of necessity' speech.

    So, do whatever you like. I know I nagged you to walk the plank with me and send more troops. But you need to know that political exigencies compel me to 'cut and run' if I have any hope of hanging on to my base and winning a second-term. Either way in two years time, you and the Afghan people are on your own. With luck, we'll keep casualties on all sides to a minimum.

    Public Relations stunts like this cost lives, however, and I hope we can all remember to act realistic and purse our lips in the appropriate manner when the poll-dropping subject of death rears its ugly head.

    Optics count.

    Parent

    Bush stuff (none / 0) (#78)
    by Steve M on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:44:11 PM EST
    Establishing a timeline gives aid and comfort to the terrorists, blah blah blah.  I've heard this speech before and it gets no less disgusting with age.

    Living in an open society means that we're entitled to more of an explanation of the government's agenda than just "shut up and trust your wise leaders to run this war."  Maybe you see that as a weakness.  Dictatorships have their weaknesses as well when it comes to waging war.

    Parent

    You don't get it... (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by kidneystones on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:11:47 PM EST
    I'm a Canadian/UK citizen living in Asia. Kicking the can down the road for another two years isn't going to work, especially with a 'maybe we'll leave and maybe we won't caveat'.

    You want to talk Bush? Dems are using Blackwater in Pakistan right now. The Harper government right now is fighting FOI requests that reveal Canadian soldiers were turning Afghans over to US troops who then beat and tortured these prisoners.

    In Canada, that's a very, big deal. US allies needed clarity and got weakness. You don't announce the departure date from enemy territory.

    Remember the Axis of Evil speech? Coming to get ya, Kim.

    North Korea simply ramped up production on the nuclear project and now is sitting exactly where Iran hopes to be in a year.

    US troops are leaving (?) and no Afghan in her or his right mind is going to take sides against the folks certain to come out on top when the Karzai is standing by his lonesome.

    Only an idiot explains the game plan to the other coach. And this isn't a game.

    Maybe the announcement is a super-crafty move in a game of 11 dimensional Afghan chess. Cause other wise, the other side is going to continue to attack US and Afghan troops and put black spot on every single person who collaborates with US forces. BTD posted the Frontline documentary on Afghanistan a few months ago. Give it another watch.

    Parent

    Well, okay then (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Steve M on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 10:51:26 PM EST
    Let me explain some background to you.  We had this president named Bush, see, who used to say disgusting things like "we can't possibly announce any kind of timeline, because it would help the enemy."  You remind me of him.

    Parent
    If I recall (none / 0) (#143)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 10:59:16 PM EST
    we were all pitching fits because Bush wouldn't give the Iraq government a timeline for when they had to shape up or lose U.S. military support.

    Whatever the defects and/or virtues of this plan, the announcement of a withdrawal date is clearly intended to make clear to Karzai that he has 18 months to get serious.

    Parent

    Giving Karzai a timeline privately (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by kidneystones on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 11:09:27 PM EST
    Isn't the same as publicly announcing the departure date of troops who have yet to arrive.

    You'd think some folks could make a distinction on that point, but you'd be wrong.

    Perhaps folks think that publicly boxing the US and the Karzai govt to a fixed (?) timetable is the wise way to go.

    I disagree and maintain that both long-term strategic and short-term tactical decisions be kept from the folks we're fighting.

    Let me put it this way: I know the US-Japan security arrangement is a rock upon which lives can be built. The US-Afghan relationship is a raft that only a lunatic would step aboard.

    It's got an expiry date on it and sinks in two years. Takes longer to plan and start a family and no Afghan is going to do that in the shadow of a corrupt regime (Karzai's) propped up by the shaky promises of the US.

    Parent

    Of course it's not the same (none / 0) (#147)
    by Steve M on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 11:21:53 PM EST
    Publicly announcing a date is much better than giving private advice because it gives the American people, who are sovereign, an idea of what the government intends to do, instead of just "trust us, we have a secret plan."

    The absurd part of your argument is acting like this date is set in stone.  Contrary to your apparent belief, we did not just purchase nonrefundable airline tickets for all the troops.  There is nothing wrong with saying "Here is what we intend to do in Afghanistan, here is how long we expect it to take."  This is very basic stuff.

    I cannot believe any progressive buys into the childish view of war where if you say "we're leaving in 2 years," then the enemy knows they just have to lie low for 2 years and then they can come out of their holes and kill everyone.  But hey, if that really works, we just bought 2 years of peace and tranquility with a single speech.

    What I really object to is this disgusting rhetoric of yours, the notion that Obama is actively aiding the enemy because he wants to placate some segment of his political base.  If I wanted to hear that crap I could go watch a Karl Rove interview or something.

    Parent

    Please compare (none / 0) (#151)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 11:59:33 PM EST
    to distinctly different arrangements again- tell me at what point post August 1945- Japan ever approached Afghan levels of active resistance combined with official corruption.

    Parent
    No one takes the departure date (none / 0) (#157)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:01:51 AM EST
    seriously - not anyone who is realistic anyway.  That was a bone thrown to the anti-war Obama supporters - to keep them hopey.

    Parent
    If you were an Afghan (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 09:23:18 AM EST
    living in Afghanistan... you would take it very seriously.

    And those are the people who count.

    Parent

    Sure, but they are more savvy than that. (5.00 / 0) (#175)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 10:37:27 AM EST
    Far more savvy about these sorts of showy political speeches after decades of war than any American could possibly be.  

    Parent
    I'm not sure of your point (2.00 / 0) (#177)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 12:45:58 PM EST
    My point is that they won't buy into the strategy because they know we aren't committed to staying.
    Look at how we left the South Vietnamese swinging, pulled out of Lebanon, pulled out of  Mogadishu, pulled out of Iraq after GHWB pushed for a revolt in Desert Storm.

    They'll just wait for us to leave and the Taliban to come back.

    Unfortunately the flip side is that we will have troops killed because Obama's waffle and all the waffling speeches since last night give aid and comfort to the enemy who will do what they need to do to kill Afghans and Americans to force the issue.

    It truly is Vietnam all over again.

    Parent

    Yes, and that's exactly what we are supposed (none / 0) (#146)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 11:12:05 PM EST
    to hear. We get a phased withdrawal, but first we get a surge.

    It's a floor wax AND a dessert topping!

    Parent

    War with Iran (none / 0) (#148)
    by kidneystones on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 11:40:56 PM EST
    will complicate any withdrawal, to say the least.

    The picture is, as others have noted, far bigger than simply Afghanistan.

    No matter how little faith I have in Dems, I'm going to suggest that there's another level to the game. And that game is focused on Tehran.

    Iran grabbed five Brit sailors. My guess is the fireworks could start anytime.

    Parent

    You know, I've given up listening (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 11:44:23 PM EST
    to the bi-weekly pronouncements that war with Iran is just around the corner. The Cassandras of that conflict have just cried wolf one too many times.

    Parent
    Careful... (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:06:26 AM EST
    I think that there were at least a couple of times there where it was a possibility and were it not for people warning that there were people - Cheney et al - seriously considering it - we might have found ourselves in there already.  It is no accident that we went into both Afghanistan and Iraq - look at a map - we've taken the positions that we can around Iran - and I'm not convinced we're going to be leaving those positions anytime soon.

    Pakistan is a complication, but I believe that Iran was the original target for the Bushies.

    Parent

    Iran is zero worry at this time (none / 0) (#165)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:50:00 AM EST
    Our people concerned about our national security have been far more concerned about any response we may receive via Russia or China on Afghanistan since both border that country, and we are in Afghanistan only because of the Taliban.  The threat that is being addressed is Islamic Extremists.

    Parent
    I agree that Iran is not top (none / 0) (#173)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 09:48:58 AM EST
    of the list at the moment, but they are still something of an obsession for some around these parts.  In any case, the comment about taking the positions around Iran had more to do with Bush policy than with current Obama policy as far as I can tell.  But that doesn't mean that the discussions about Afghanistan do not ever include a consideration of Iran.  I would be surprised if no one was thinking about what Iran's role might be in the event that we were to create a power void in Afghanistan by leaving in the wrong way or at the wrong time.  In fact, I'd be a little nervous if they were not.

    In any case, none of this is to suggest that war is imminent with Iran or anything like that.  What I was saying above is that the nutcases in Cheney's office were seriously close a couple of times and fortuntely people not only screamed about it, but also most Americans disapproved of the idea.  In that context, I am fine with the so-called "Cassandras".  In Washington, just because someone's prediction doesn't come true doesn't mean that it was not on track to become true before they alerted people.  In many cases, we call these people whistleblowers and we should really thank them most of the time for having the courage to say something.

    Parent

    They were nutcases for sure (none / 0) (#176)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 12:00:19 PM EST
    And Iran was providing the goods in Iraq to make IEDs.  I know they are carefully tracking all the weapons they obtain from Taliban hands in Afghanistan.  Such things are indications of who is sympathetic to their cause.

    Parent
    so true (none / 0) (#152)
    by coigue on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 12:12:52 AM EST
    I get it (none / 0) (#150)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 11:57:43 PM EST
    you're playing the role of the angry Canadian- sure you can't do anything, and sure any option Obama choose would be met by a wealth of criticism from you- but that doesn't matter.

    Parent
    No, you don't get it (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by kidneystones on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:35:38 AM EST
    I'm playing the role of the guy who suited-up a  to stand alongside the US about a million years ago; and who lives within Kim's rocket range.

    I'm playing the role of the guy who wants US soft power to carry the day, but understands that not everyone in the world believes in universal suffrage and the right to a decent education for everyone regardless of income and gender.

    I'm the guy married to an Asian, who's bought a couple of homes in Asia and who has kids in Asian schools. I could move to Kabul tomorrow and probably find work. I'm fascinated by Iran and Iraq and would happily live in either country or Afghanistan if I thought my own life and that of my wife and daughter, particularly, would not be at risk.

    You seem to think that the rest of the world wants America and Obama to succeed. Many don't. Dems can dress sending more troops to Afghanistan in any language they like, but the fact increasing the number of US troops in Afghanistan and employing Blackwater in Pakistan is an extension of Bush policies, the same policies I stress that won the US so much opprobrium over the last 8 years.

    Commit fully and make it work; or get out. That's the message US allies have been sending all along. And for those who can't envision an Israeli attack on Iran or even a joint Israeli-US attack, I suggest you review your history.

    Cheney wanted to pull the trigger in 2008 but was over-ruled by Bush. Those on the right in Israel, in Britain, in Europe, in Australia, and in the US and Canada who see Iran and the Taliban as a threat believe that dithering and half-measure are not going to work.

    I think they've got a point.


    Parent

    Ignore or delete the double post, below, please. (none / 0) (#167)
    by kidneystones on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 09:12:59 AM EST
    No, you don't get it (none / 0) (#164)
    by kidneystones on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:39:30 AM EST
    I'm playing the role of the guy who suited-up to stand alongside the US about a million years ago; and who lives within Kim's rocket range.

    I'm the guy who wants US soft power to carry the day, but understands that not everyone in the world believes in universal suffrage and the right to a decent education for everyone regardless of income and gender.

    I'm the guy married to an Asian, who's bought a couple of homes in Asia and who has kids in Asian schools. I could move to Kabul tomorrow and  work.

    I'm fascinated by Iran and Iraq and would happily live in either country or Afghanistan if I thought my own life and that of my wife and daughter, particularly, would not be at risk.

    The threats against those who work with the US are real. In many parts of Afghanistan, the Taliban are the government and 30,000 troops there for two years isn't going to change that.

    You seem to think that the rest of the world wants America and Obama to succeed. Many don't. Dems can dress sending more troops to Afghanistan in any language they like, but the fact increasing the number of US troops in Afghanistan and employing Blackwater in Pakistan is an extension of Bush policies, the same policies I stress that won the US so much opprobrium over the last 8 years.

    Commit fully and make it work; or get out. That's the message US allies have been sending all along. And for those who can't envision an Israeli attack on Iran or even a joint Israeli-US attack, I suggest you review your history.

    Cheney wanted to pull the trigger in 2008 but was over-ruled by Bush. Those on the right in Israel, in Britain, in Europe, in Australia, and in the US and Canada who see Iran and the Taliban as a threat believe that dithering and half-measure are not going to work.

    This is either a complete smokescreen to cover a long-term US presence in Afghanistan or a recipe for a bloodbath.

    Take your pick.


    Parent

    Establishing a timeline hurts us (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by gpassavanti on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 09:09:16 AM EST
    If you know anything at all about the people we are at war with you would not make such a ludicrous statement.They will wait it out.

    "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just they know so much that isn't so."  
    Ronald Reagan


    Parent

    Yes, openness with your citizens and the (none / 0) (#139)
    by coast on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 10:34:29 PM EST
    Enemy is right there in chapter 2 of Sun Tzu's Art of War as a key aspect to winning any conflict.

    Parent
    too much "I" (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by CST on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:13:47 PM EST
    right now.

    Disagree (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:14:32 PM EST
    This is about him: it's his call.

    Parent
    Maybe (none / 0) (#84)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:53:09 PM EST
    the too much "I" is appropriate here, but Obama overuses it in every speech he gives.  EVERYTHING is  always brought back to be about him.

    Parent
    I agree. (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:16:27 AM EST
    I've noticed it in most of his speeches where it seemed like he should have talked about something in terms of "we" as a nation and "us" as Americans rather that I, me, me, my.  But his speech writers likely venerate him and believe in the power of him.  I think this White House suffers from a syndrome of believing their own PR a little too much sometimes.

    For instance, I really think they believed that Obama's popularity just after the election was going to hold based on Obama's charisma alone.  Now they are finding out that that isn't exactly how this President thing works.

    Parent

    For what it's worth (none / 0) (#107)
    by CST on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:16:56 PM EST
    by "right now" I meant literally, just as I was posting that.  There was one little stretch of the speech where I thought it was a bit much.  Not saying he should never say "I".

    Parent
    More text: (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:19:40 PM EST
    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.



    Pakistan (none / 0) (#16)
    by CST on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:24:10 PM EST
    one of three core elements - good.

    Afghan - Vietnam came up.  Surprised he went there.

    Parent

    He had to (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:25:25 PM EST
    Full text here.

    I'm prepared to support this, but I want to hear more.

    Parent

    More (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:22:28 PM EST
    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.



    I wonder if he took a course (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Cream City on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:27:13 PM EST
    or two in Vietnam War history, Asian history. . . .  There are many scholars who would disagree with his labeling of their analyses as "false history."  (Ahem, the definition of "false history" is actually something else.)

    But as I recall, he was a poli sci major.:-)

    Parent

    Echoes of domino theory, so oops (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:29:04 PM EST
    But I do like his implicit rejection of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.

    Parent
    Shades of "Coalition of the willing" (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by caseyOR on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:10:38 PM EST
    Bush also touted our many allies, but in reality, the boots on the ground and the dollars in cost are mostly ours. And a little history reading will reveal that other countries fought with us in Vietnam, too.

    We cannot afford to put our domestic needs on hold while spending what remains of our treasure on either this war or Iraq. I live at the low end of the economic spectrum. We are in a major economic crisis, much bigger than Washington has been willing to acknowledge. We need to focus on fixing things at home, and not continue to  throw good money after bad on these wars.

    Parent

    Even if this costs another $200b, that's (none / 0) (#63)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:15:14 PM EST
    a pittance. We can fix the national economy with a $4T cash injection--probably.

    Parent
    Come on, andgarden (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by caseyOR on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:26:19 PM EST
    We both know that the cost of expanding and extending this war will be yet another cudgel with which the deficit hawks will beat down anyone who pushes for spending on needed domestic programs. I can hear them now "Cut entitlements to pay for the war!"

    Obama has already adopted the chosen language of the Hamilton Project and all the other Peter Peterson groups.

    Parent

    They can only get away with that (none / 0) (#71)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:29:20 PM EST
    if we give them the rhetorical ground. And the President has done so--to his discredit.

    Parent
    Well he doesn't exactly disagree (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:30:55 PM EST
    with the Hamilton project.

    Parent
    In this case (none / 0) (#155)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 12:50:55 AM EST
    though there has been a long-term presence by multiple NATO allies.

    Parent
    This is (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:37:05 PM EST
    another "they say" thing vintage Bush. It was irritating when Bush did it and it is still tiresome to hear it.

    Parent
    All politicians do that (none / 0) (#28)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:37:56 PM EST
    Exactly. (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Cream City on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:39:24 PM EST
    Just a pol.

    Parent
    "The nation that I am most interested (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:27:40 PM EST
    in building is our own."

    Good line.

    "Good line" ? WTF? (none / 0) (#90)
    by kidneystones on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:57:23 PM EST
    It's tepid, at best. How about:

    'The only nation this president is dedicated to protecting and preserving is the United States of America. We are now in the process of repairing and rebuilding these United States of America at home and also, in special cases, abroad. Afghanistan is just such a case.'

    The speech is one long, vapid, thread-the-needle, straddling campaign promise. Killer phrase?

    Wapo:

    According to Obama, the extra U.S. and allied troops would "allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces and . . . begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011." He said this withdrawal will be executed "responsibly" by "taking into account conditions on the ground,...[as] in Iraq.

    So...the message is...what exactly...troops are staying or coming out. If Gitmo and Iraq are any indication God alone knows how many and how long US troops are going to be in Afghaniston.

    One thing for sure is, Obama wants to take US troops out of Afghanistan as quickly as possible, but...may he won't be able to.

    Graveyard of Empires? Not a problem. 100,000 US troops with some allies? We'll be out of their in two or three years tops.

    Slam-dunk.


    Parent

    Good line - but he needs to put (none / 0) (#162)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:21:58 AM EST
    his money where his mouth is on that one.

    The reality is that everyone but the American people has gotten direct relief from this Administration.

    All he's talking about lately is the deficit - not laying the ground work for additional spending that we know we need.

    Parent

    It's a pretty good speech (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Cream City on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:28:22 PM EST
    but the problem is that I've heard it before.  In the '60s.  I swear, some of the phrases are the same.

    It is one of his better speeches (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:29:30 PM EST
    He practiced it, too -- (none / 0) (#24)
    by Cream City on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:32:05 PM EST
    only a few flubs so far.  But generally better pacing than some of his others, with their odd timing and emphases.

    Parent
    He's better when he has his back up (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:34:31 PM EST
    against the wall.

    Parent
    You think so? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Maryb2004 on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:45:45 PM EST
    I thought it was one of his worst.  I had a hard time keeping myself focused on it.  My mind kept drifting.  

    Parent
    Well, it's all about what you bring to it (none / 0) (#36)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:47:06 PM EST
    I had fewer editorial comments than normal.

    Parent
    I know, I know (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:08:49 PM EST
    It's bothering me too.  Scaring me too.  I am having an LBJ deja vu.  I pray that I am wrong.  

    Parent
    LBJ deja vu (none / 0) (#168)
    by Molly Pitcher on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 09:13:45 AM EST
    From the standpoint of a very old codger who never believed in domino theory, but had children doing the 'duck and cover' at nursery school: If Obama was really a reprise of LBJ, ALL would not be lost.  Think back to the reforms he pushed thru for American citizens--and imagine what the US would be now if he had not.

    Yes, Vietnam was disgraceful and the deaths beyond apologising for. That's why he did not run again--he'd been pushed too far by the war machine and he knew the presidency had been fatally damaged.

     "By contrast with Mr. Obama," wrote historian Robert Dallek in the New York Times Jan 23, 2009, "Johnson had no mandate to govern except for being vice president. No one expected a Southern politician to suddenly replace the youngest man ever elected to the White House. . . . Johnson understood that his greatest initial challenge was to provide reassurance--to convince not just Americans but people around the world, who looked to the United States for leadership in the cold war, that he could measure up to the standard JFK had set as an effective president at home and abroad."

    Johnson had been a consummate legislative deal maker before Kennedy chose him to balance the ticket as his vice presidential running mate in 1960. But Johnson, a longtime senator from Texas, was never a member of Kennedy's inner circle. Many liberal Democrats were skeptical of him as a Southerner and Washington operator when he succeeded Kennedy. But Johnson "was able to turn the country's grief into a commitment to a moral crusade," presidential scholar Jeffrey Tulis has written. It took him longer than 100 days, but he set Congress on the path to passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as a tax cut and Medicare. Actually, he sought to pass more legislation, help more people, lift more Americans out of poverty, and become more of a historic figure than FDR. And in some ways he succeeded, under a program he called the Great Society.

        *

    Parent

    Obama would call that "false history" (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by Cream City on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 09:30:16 AM EST
    to quote his speech.  Silly historians, those were not accomplishments by LBJ.  Those were entitlements!

    Parent
    Entitlements that need to be (5.00 / 3) (#174)
    by MO Blue on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 10:16:57 AM EST
    drastically reduced so that there will be enough money to pay for endless wars and tax breaks to the rich.

    Parent
    one major difference (none / 0) (#25)
    by CST on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:34:11 PM EST
    there is no soviet union in this fight.

    Parent
    So many smart, beautiful young people (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by Cream City on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:38:42 PM EST
    in that West Point audience.  I hope that they do not end up just names on a wall.  

    It would be easier if I were young, too, tonight -- if I did not keep seeing so many smart, beautiful young faces from the past who did not live long enough to hear the next of so many inspiring speeches.

    Those same memories (none / 0) (#124)
    by christinep on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:46:59 PM EST
    The memories of my youth and others--and Vietnam--haunt me too. The memories of those that did not come back; and, the often broken ones who did (and, our broken society in those days.) For now, I will try to stuff those ghosts under the bed, in hampers, wherever. I know that there is a vast ocean of difference between the theoretical design of a speech and the reality into which we move. But, I also believe that the President made a compelling speech in terms of how we got to where we are...and, he did it without too much of the usual sugarcoating found in more typical rah-rah speeches. While I had acclimated myself before the speech to support in a temporary sense, I was surpised by the strength of the pragmatic argument for limited involvement driven by a general timeframe. We'll see, obviously. As I said at the outset: I'll try to keep the ghosts of the past at bay because being a prisoner of my past can be as big an impediment as ignoring the past in Afghanistan and elsewhere.  BTW--The strategic interweaving of Afghanistan and Pakistan struck me as particularly well thought out.

    Parent
    I was trying to be open minded (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Maryb2004 on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:44:05 PM EST
    but I was not convinced by this speech.

    Way too much why (5.00 / 4) (#112)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:21:34 PM EST
    nowhere near enough what.

    Parent
    Join me on the fence! (none / 0) (#34)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:44:41 PM EST
    That's what the (none / 0) (#37)
    by brodie on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:50:22 PM EST
    30k more troop + withdrawal beginning in July 2011 will do to you.

    A policy designed for both strategic and domestic political purposes.

    Though he'll get flak from the war hawks about the 18 month withdrawal date being too soon, it's also soon enough to probably dampen some of the anticipated anger from the Dem base.

    Parent

    Timeline only works if goals are attainable (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Cream City on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:54:44 PM EST
    and I cannot see how so.  This is Afghanistan.

    Parent
    Well, that's what this comes down to (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:56:34 PM EST
    Convince us that the goals are attainable.

    Parent
    Militarily the only way we lose this (none / 0) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:52:25 PM EST
    is if we want to.  They aren't going to militarily kick our a$$ or something like that.  Our efforts could fail to stabilize the region....sure.  But we aren't going to have our arses handed to us.

    Parent
    We lose when we leave (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Cream City on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:00:08 PM EST
    -- to paraphrase Ho Chi Minh.

    So if we want to really win it, we never leave?

    Parent

    Afghanistan is not Vietnam (none / 0) (#94)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:04:03 PM EST
    Afghanistan is not Vietnam (none / 0) (#95)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:04:04 PM EST
    What do you mean by that, MT? (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by caseyOR on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:08:47 PM EST
    They are two different countries, but, despite what Obama claimed in his speech, the similarities are striking and concerning.

    Parent
    You can sit here all night long (none / 0) (#105)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:14:11 PM EST
    and try to draw up Vietnam analogies but Afghanistan is not Vietnam anymore than Iraq turned into Vietnam.

    Parent
    What do you mean when you say that? (none / 0) (#109)
    by caseyOR on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:17:48 PM EST
    I am trying to understand. What about these wars makes them "not like Vietnam" to you?

    Parent
    Everything.....to include the military and (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:24:31 PM EST
    the military leaders executing them.  Everything is different.  The political climate of both countries is not Vietnam.  I can't even call Afghanistan a civil war because there aren't well defined forces at work with large support of the population.  It is nothing but a power struggle and nobody has the actual "force" that we do if it comes down to the use of force at any given time in this.

    Parent
    I disagree (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by caseyOR on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:42:10 PM EST
    All wars are power struggles. In Vietnam it was North vs. South vs. our fear of the "domino theory" and the spectre of communism. I. Afghanistan it is Taliban vs. USA vs. warlords vs. our fear of "radical Islam" and the terrorists. It's always about power.

    As to the whole "force" thing, yes we have more "actual force" than the other players, but we did in Vietnam, too. A lot of good it did us. That force was only as important as our willingness to use it. Fortunately, IMO, we were not willing to make full use of our force (nuclear weapons) in Vietnam, and I hope we do not succumb to the full use of our force now and end up bombing Afghanistan to total rubble.

    What Vietnam was supposed to have taught us, and what we apparently failed to learn, is that the conflicts we face now are not going to be solved by use of force. The days when we could invade Normandy and push the Germans back to Berlin and into surrender are long past.

    And that whole "hearts and minds" thing? We aren't any better at it now than we were in Vietnam.

    Parent

    I know (none / 0) (#129)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 10:03:51 PM EST
    Everyone is piiiiiii$$ed right now.  I'm not understanding how this has happened.  I've been at war for awhile now.  I guess I'm used to having to deal with some war....and everyone else is mad as hell right now and I'm going to retreat to email for a bit :)  Be well everyone, don't shoot anyone in the face....luv ya all

    Parent
    Afghanistan looks more impossible (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Cream City on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:35:52 PM EST
    than Vietnam in topography alone.  Those endless rice paddies look easy compared to endless mountain ranges.  Just looked up the topography on google earth.  Ye gods, there are not enough mules to bring in our modern weaponry, one piece and one peak at a time.

    Parent
    Gawd.....everybody did this with Iraq (none / 0) (#98)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:07:36 PM EST
    too.  I've heard it for how many years now and has Iraq turned into Vietnam?  Nope, it is just the Iraq War and all that that entails.  At no time did it morph into Vietnam though.  Now we are drawing Iraq to a close.  Wasn't the Democrats fault but they'll shut this thing down the right way and we will tend to stabilizing the country that we were attacked from as well as many of our allies thusfar.

    Parent
    But we are still in Iraq and (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by caseyOR on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:10:34 PM EST
    slated to be there for years to come. We may be drawing down troop strength, but we are not leaving by any stretch.

    Parent
    " This is Afghanistan" (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Maryb2004 on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:56:43 PM EST
    That's the crux of the problem.  Did he even address that?  Did I blank out during that part?  He addressed the comparison to Vietnam but did he address the comparison to ... every other war ever fought in or over Afghanistan?

    Parent
    Yeah he did (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:28:41 PM EST
    And that was when he attempted to speak directly to the Afghan people about our goal being nothing to do with occupation.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by dissenter on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:39:39 PM EST
    But the Afghans that want us out aren't watching this on TV because they don't have electricity and the Afghans we need to help us just heard, "get your money while you can cuz we are outta there."

    Parent
    My husband is there (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:49:44 PM EST
    and he watched it in real time.  I doubt that many Afghans will get to see it, but some will.  You slightly exaggerate how pathetic and hopeless all Afghans are.

    Parent
    They will see it (5.00 / 5) (#96)
    by dissenter on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:05:05 PM EST
    It will be played in full on TOLO and Lemar tomorrow. The people will call in or text exactly what they think. As I said, those with electricity will see it. The fact is that most of the country doesn't have it and the literacy rate is under 10%. That isn't something you are going to change in 18 months. Further, their values aren't our values. What they hear is not usually what we hear.

    I don't exaggerate. My work was all about the  locals..... and it wasn't on a secure base in Afghanistan. It was in real world Afghanistan thank you. I now spend half my time trying to help Afgans get out.... at their begging. They've seen the writing on the wall for over two years now.  Americans seemingly just woke up to it this year.

    Like I said earlier, I am not knocking you or Afghans. I love many of them but I am a realist and that comes from working on the ground for a couple of years.

    You know what keeps me up at night...the fact there are so few Afghans that I can help get out. The rest will get slaughtered after our little experiment is over.

    Parent

    My worst fears, (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:14:32 PM EST
    Vietnam part deux.  Is Obama going to be LBJ?  LBJ had such wonderful goals for our country but it was all ruined by Vietnam.  Surely that won't happen again.  

    Parent
    Obama is not going to be LBJ (none / 0) (#110)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:19:54 PM EST
    Not with you guys around up his arse.  I wish him luck with that.  He doesn't want to be LBJ though either.  Look, I was surprised by the guys candor and I did not take away from this speech that he hit the weed anytime during its conception.  If anything I feel a little guilty about how ticked I was getting about how long it took him to make his decision and it seemed to me that he took a look at the situation from all angles......and now I feel bad for being cranky at him now.

    Parent
    Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by kidneystones on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:17:33 PM EST
    Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.

    Keep up the good work and keep us posted if you will.

    Parent

    Dissenter (none / 0) (#113)
    by kidneystones on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:22:06 PM EST
    the thank you post is for you.

    24 months seems like a long, long time to some people. To the families of those posted overseas, it's an eternity.

    To those planning a major military campaign, drop in the bucket.

    The exit date is fatal error, raising expectations at home and giving aid and comfort to the Taliban.

    Anyway, thank you for trying to get some to safety.

    Parent

    Thanks (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by dissenter on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:29:48 PM EST
    And a note to everyone. There are very good people that need to get out. The best way is through educational scholarships. If you are tied to any programs that have openings for Afghans (some schools do) please contact me. I have some very capable people with very good English skills that need a chance at life. They have all worked on our country's behalf for years and I will vouch for them.

    Parent
    dissenter, (none / 0) (#125)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:47:43 PM EST
    I was going over there with NGO until i wrecked my ankle. I don't want to post an open email, but inasmuch as education goes, we need to get in touch. You want to create a new fake email or should I?

    Are there government funding programs for Afghanis now as there were for som Iraqi's? Don't know, but funding makes a difference. Oh, male or female, no problem. In my area are many from outside the US. It IS Alabama, however...
    try me at anonemail50@yahoo.com for help on educational locations.

    Parent

    sent (none / 0) (#133)
    by dissenter on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 10:14:30 PM EST
    I don't think that anybody thinks (none / 0) (#104)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:12:52 PM EST
    we'll change the literacy rate in 18 months either.  I understand you don't want to do this, but you don't need to exaggerate things into things that they aren't.  I think you are overly hung up on this eighteen month thing and if you are involved to the degree that you are YOU KNOW that eighteen months can mean something and can mean nothing when we get to eighteen months.  The President will continue to refine and define this mission on a daily basis if need be, and that is his job.

    Parent
    And if you think (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by dissenter on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:20:26 PM EST
    there is a military "strategy" to win war and wipe out corruption than you are going to be very disappointed. I said 18 months because that is what the president just said. And you know what, I actually believe him for a change.

    Things will only get worse over there and he just gave himself an out...I think if he could have taken that out today he would have. The war is not winnable.

    Today it was politically impossible to get out. In 18 months he has another election to win and Obama is all about Obama. He will take that out. You notice he didn't make his deadline after the election.

    Parent

    I understand that you don't want to do this (none / 0) (#118)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:25:47 PM EST
    I understand that you believe we can nothing of worth

    Parent
    Wow (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by dissenter on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:33:27 PM EST
    That is why I wasted a couple years of my life because it wasn't worth doing. Thanks girl. That's rich coming from you.

    Sometimes one can look at something - based on experience - and say enough.

    Parent

    Don't be absurd. (3.50 / 2) (#75)
    by Maryb2004 on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:36:32 PM EST
    Speaking directly to the Afghan people is not answering the American people's legitimate question of how WE are not going to be destroyed in Afghanistan when everyone else has been.  

    Parent
    What war has ever been a certainty? (none / 0) (#80)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:47:51 PM EST
    What military action was ever a certainty?

    Parent
    So far (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by Maryb2004 on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:50:24 PM EST
    it has been a certainty that nobody ever wins in Afghanistan.  

    It's also been a certainty that lots of people die trying.

    Parent

    This is just rhetoric (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:55:10 PM EST
    Has the rainbow coalition conquered the South?  NOPE....but the South is stabilized :)

    Parent
    Yup (none / 0) (#38)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:52:19 PM EST
    My prediction: The Dems will cave, and he'll get this funded overwhelmingly.

    My compromise: make the Republicans eat the "phased withdrawal" language that they rejected in 2007. Everyone eats a $h*t sandwich.

    Parent

    BTD (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:56:55 PM EST
    thinks that he's lying when he says withdrawl in 2011 and so do I. I think he's just saying it now because the base is so demoralized and hoping it works. Of course, any pumping up of the base is going to be short term when the lie catches up with him.

    Parent
    Probably (none / 0) (#44)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:59:06 PM EST
    Is 2013 just an unlucky number?

    Parent
    I'm good to go now (none / 0) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:08:18 PM EST
    This would be a joke (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by dissenter on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:56:34 PM EST
    except it is going to cost lots of lives and billions of dollars. This was a terrible speech. It had no content and the content it had was a flat out lie. You couldn't train one brigade in Afghanistan in 18 months let alone an army and police force. And oh ya, we aren't actually building anything that might actually get the people to stop shooting at us.

    He might get his troops but he just made the entire mess worse with that speech. Absolutely nobody will trust us. Nobody.

    And re tribal definition of "corruption" (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Cream City on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:06:13 PM EST
    -- does it even exist, in tribal society?  I cannot fathom how their definition could be the same as ours; it's such a different economy, polity, etc.

    We have seen before what happens when we cannot even agree on definitions of terms across two far different cultures.  I keep asking and looking but not finding an answer to what "corruption" means in tribal Afghanistan.  But I have read enough about tribal cultures elsewhere to know that this could be problematic in terms of attainable goals for us.

    In some Native American tribal cultures, for example, our "corruption" is, instead, a crucial negotiating ritual: gift-giving.

    Parent

    Excellent Point (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by dissenter on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:12:17 PM EST
    Our definition and their definition are not consistent and since we have been paying people off left and right over there Obama's words will confuse them even more.

    Parent
    Do we have a definition (none / 0) (#86)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:55:00 PM EST
    of corruption here any more?  So many corrupters have and continue to get off scott free.  

    I'm as disappointed as I can be.

    Parent

    I'm astonished the broken promises year (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by kidneystones on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:49:04 PM EST
    after year don't register with Dems. Cause they sure do outside the US.

    The Taliban are going to string the collaborators up on lamp-poles as an object lesson to everyone with an axe to grind against the US, or US ally, that America can't be trusted.

    The speech is crassly and offensive political. The time-lines have S-F-A to do with exigencies in Afghanistan and everything to do with the election cycles in the US. Callous doesn't come close to summing it up.

    Absolutely frigging nauseating.

    Parent

    Donna Brazile is as stupid as ever (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:02:03 PM EST
    She's saying that 2011 doesn't really mean 2011, so don't worry Republicans.

    heh (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:03:38 PM EST
    so they're already starting to say he's lying. Why anybody would show up to vote for any of these jokers is beyond me at this point.

    Parent
    She's always made the case for the Republicans (none / 0) (#48)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:04:37 PM EST
    better than anyone. I hope they pay her well.

    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:06:19 PM EST
    and she's the same one that's lost elections and brought you Obama. Sometimes I think the GOP couldn't have put togehter a better Trojan horse to destroy the party than the Brazille/Obama team.

    Parent
    Sure route to electoral success (none / 0) (#134)
    by caseyOR on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 10:15:09 PM EST
    Run against someone whose campaign staff includes Donna Brazile and Bob Shrum.

    Parent
    I hate it, but she's right (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:04:03 PM EST
    Obama isn't going to build up the troops and then bring them home again in a few months, or even a year.  But we don't need her to tell us that.  

    Parent
    Of course she's right (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:10:52 PM EST
    But purely from the perspective of "Democratic operative" she did a really poor job--as always. I would never hire her for my campaign, ever.

    Parent
    Afghanistan (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Coral on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:05:28 PM EST
    Where empires go to die.

    It's a cliche, but Obama's speech did nothing to change my mind about that.

    He'd do much better to take that 30 billion and spend it here at home, where Americans, the ordinary, middle- and lower-middle-class kind, are suffering, mostly silently.

    God help us if the GOP makes major gains in 2010 and 2012 because Democrats are acting as GOP-light.

    Ugh.

    Eviscerated From the Right (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by kidneystones on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 10:17:59 PM EST
    "Weirdly defensive", "Zero-mention of victory", "Couldn't he mention winning"

    Just had a quick view of the response from the right. Sure enough, Obama isn't getting much more than a cherry-picked 'I liked the part about Al Quaida' portion of credit from the right.

    And why should he?

    The speech was a purely political appeal to the left to cut him some slack with numbers as low as he could make them to appease the left and as high as he could make them to appease the right. Trying to please both, he pleases nobody.

    I'm reading, btw, George Lefebvre's superb study: "Napoleon: From 18 Brumaire to Tilsit 1799-1807"

    Going into Italy is one thing, getting out of Russia, another. People seem to have totally forgotten how difficult withdrawing from Iraq is now. It's like Dem minds have all suddenly gone blank as the stare at their TV screens going 'duh'.

    A best case scenario will resemble Nixon withdrawing US troops from Viet Nam only to send them to Cambodia. Welcome back from Iraq, here's your ticket to Kabul.

    The LBJ Great Society comparison is also apt. The good news? Nobody seems to be calling Obama, Carteresque. Something to look forward to, I suppose.

    Shocking.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:22:53 PM EST
    like I said above I'm tired of being lied to by Obama and I actually have some skin in this game because of family members in the military. I would much rather have been told the truth but Obama is not courageous enough to do that. Lying is the easy way out right now but it always catches up with you in the end.

    Oh, no, that is even more complicated (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Cream City on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 10:29:11 PM EST
    and fraught with international problems.  So this is what Obama means by a coalition of support from other countries?

    Thanks for the edification.

    Kinda lol (none / 0) (#140)
    by dissenter on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 10:45:53 PM EST
    There are three countries that only do offensive operations: US, Canada, Brits. The other NATO countries can't participate in offensive ops so while you might get some troops from Germany, France, etc most of them can't actually fight. It really is joke.

    The contractors are from all over. If you guard the military as a contractor you must be from the US. If you guard the State Dept or the embassy you can be from Peru or some other place (the frat house party at the Kabul embassy was mostly staffed by S Americans). If you work on USAID projects you can be from anywhere. The cheaper you are the better chance you have of getting hired.... which somewhat explains why aid has been so ineffectively delivered. Little experience. When you work for USAID you have a rate. This rate is established by years of service and experience. You get the same rate no matter where you work. Your pay goes up if you qualify for danger pay and post differential (hardship post). In a war zone though you must also pay for DBA. Companies that are not US can get around this law. Indians are cheap to begin with.

    Then to buy our "allies", we promise them that their  companies get contracts. This is why the US marines and former US mil don't guard our embassies around the world. Ironically, there is an actual law that prohibits USAID/State from favoring US companies. This goes back to Vietnam.

    It goes on and on. Seriously, nobody would believe the back story on all of this and the press doesn't care.

    Parent

    Was it ghost written (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 03:59:37 AM EST
    by George Bush?

    pakistan (none / 0) (#7)
    by CST on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:11:05 PM EST
    just came up

    also (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by CST on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:11:36 PM EST
    2011 is waaaay too early - and yes - probably a lie

    Parent
    This (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:13:39 PM EST
    is my frustration that he keeps lying about all this. Why can't he tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may? He can take the hit now for telling the truth or he can keep giving the GOP examples of how he can't tell the truth.

    Parent
    He can't tell the truth, (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:06:18 PM EST
    It would upset too many of us on the left.  We know that he can't send in troops and take them back out within a year.  It doesn't even make sense but too much of his base would be upset if he told the truth so he has to pretend that he can control when this will end.  

    Parent
    But that (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:25:39 PM EST
    lie is going to catch up with him. Do you not think that the "left" is going to figure out when the troops don't come home that Obama was playing them for chumps? They should've realized it already because he's already broken the Iraq promise he made to them.

    Parent
    There are many on the left (none / 0) (#132)
    by AX10 on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 10:12:22 PM EST
    who will do as Obama desires, no matter what.
    Just take a look at DemocratUnderground.

    What no one is speaking of is the threat that exists within the borders of Pakistan.
    Most of the Taliban and company fled to Pakistan following 9/11.
    Pakistan does pose a potential horrific scenario that is not being discussed.

    Also, the tribes of Afghanistan have been fighting for thousands of years.  No nation has ever been able to take the country over.  There is not realistic means to unify the various tribes.

    Parent

    A mistake because it sets up 2012 (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:13:00 PM EST
    He should have said 2013.

    Parent
    Exactly. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:15:53 PM EST
    Does that mean he will end the war by 2012? (none / 0) (#154)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 12:26:12 AM EST
    That would be my guess.  He'll declare some sort of victory, as a result of his troop build up and accelerate the return of our troops.  He has to do that, or it becomes ''Obama's War".  

    Parent
    Not to worry, andgarden... (none / 0) (#160)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:15:38 AM EST
    I'm sure his commanders on the ground will accommodate him when the time comes.

    Parent
    Ugh, shut up about the deficit. (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:26:44 PM EST


    It's a geniune concern (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:11:03 PM EST
    And secondly, don't think that the troops haven't watched our treasured squandered by the Bush administration.  More accountability for dollars, I'm okay with that.

    Parent
    It just gives the Republicans license to carp (none / 0) (#65)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:16:06 PM EST
    about domestic spending. I worry much more about the people we're sending to die. Much more.

    Parent
    You saw many of them watching (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:20:04 PM EST
    from all over, Marines at Pendleton, Infantry at Bragg, deployed in Afghanistan...these people are not afraid and they know they may die doing this.  Not that I think we should take their lives lightly, but they are choosing this service at this time and this has snuck up on nobody now.  If you are in uniform you are so knowing full the day you signed on the line we are at war.

    Parent
    Obey on CBS sounding reasonable (none / 0) (#31)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:40:32 PM EST
    but also sounding terrible. Swine flu?

    One way to look at this (none / 0) (#32)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:41:51 PM EST
    A variation on the "phased withdrawal" proposals of 2007. Except, of course, that we go in the other direction first. . .

    Think about it this way (none / 0) (#45)
    by Dadler on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:59:11 PM EST
    Imagine you're an Afghan citizen, and you don't want us there. What are your options? Do what we want, or else die a violent death. Those are your options.

    This is doomed.

    A piece by a former female Afghan parliament member on why our surge is not wanted there.

    This was linked in Glenn's post this (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 10:09:37 PM EST
    morning, and I found it incredibly poignant; the heartache of living in a country that has been under occupation by one country after another for several generations, at least, is impossible for me to fathom.

    I did not watch the speech, but from the excerpts I have read here, it is impossible to distinguish this president's voice from the last one's, which is enough to make one weep.  That he expects us to believe that he will begin sending additional troops in only 18 months before he expects to bring the troops home is just incredibly insulting.

    Where are we getting another 30 billion dollars, on top of what we are already spending in Iraq and Afghanistan?  Are we really so in love with ourselves that we think we can do what no other country has been able to do for decades?

    My gut reaction is that it's just a damn shame that we keep electing people who just don't have the chops to carry out this incredibly demanding job.

    Someone let me know when we have a real president, okay?

    Parent

    Today, I suddenly saw in my mind's eye (none / 0) (#53)
    by Cream City on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:07:40 PM EST
    those horrifying photos of Buddhist monks self-immolating to try to gain the world's attention to what was happening in Vietnam. . . .

    Parent
    Oh, and thanks for the link (none / 0) (#58)
    by Cream City on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:11:32 PM EST
    -- a worthwhile read.  Bookmarked.  Thanks.

    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:06:53 PM EST
    That was a speech.  My husband called at the beginning of it so I had to rewind it and thank God he called when he did because where he was they are working round the clock and they thought it was coming on a half an hour later than it was so he was hollering out....Obama's on now!  And I cried at the beginning remembering how hard it has been being completely lied to and used like we didn't matter by the Bush administration.  And how refreshing, an auditorium packed with some of the staunchest Conservatives in this country and nobody thought it was okay or appropriate or even necessary or called for to scream LIAR.  Southern Congressmen should be ashamed as well as anyone who sent him one dollar.

    MT, I'm back online (none / 0) (#55)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:10:34 PM EST
    Medical--killed my ankle a couple of weeks ago. looks like i won't be going, and walking like House foreevr is a serious possibility. Still have my email?

    Parent
    Oh God friend (none / 0) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:13:01 PM EST
    I'll shoot you a line.  I hope you are okay. What am I going to do with you and Josh and these feet issues :)?  

    Parent
    heh. Worry about Josh. (none / 0) (#62)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:14:05 PM EST
    I can be an old fat daddy in one of those scooters!

    Parent
    Jeff, not MT, but been thinking about you (none / 0) (#61)
    by caseyOR on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:13:56 PM EST
    Sorry to hear about the ankle. Glad you are safe.

    Parent
    thanks, CasyOR (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:15:33 PM EST
    there comes a time in life to stay on the porch and I didn't.

    Parent
    You had to go give it a shot :) (none / 0) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:26:44 PM EST
    I'd do it again. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:34:14 PM EST
    There's the thing that's easy, the thing that's hard, the thing that sucks, and then there's 'the right thing.'

    To quote Antoine de Sant-Exupery, in "The Little Prince," "You become responsible, forever, for what you have tamed."

    Parent

    I hear you on the whole porch thing. (none / 0) (#73)
    by caseyOR on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:34:02 PM EST
    Speaking from a purely selfish place, it is a relief for me that you are home. MT has brought the personal costs of deployment to my consciousness; Mr. MT is always in my thoughts. I am happy to not have you on my list of blog folks I worry about.

    Parent
    you are too kind. (none / 0) (#76)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:38:02 PM EST
    If I could, I would be there. Thank goodness I'll be teaching in January. I don't advocate others taking my position, but I couldn't NOT do it and still be me.

    I now have people who are going, and that's my cross to bear. Heh. I was 'Papa Jeff' to the youngsters.

    Parent

    The sub rosa mission, (none / 0) (#85)
    by KeysDan on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:53:14 PM EST
    it seems to me, is that Afghanistan is really to be a staging area for efforts in Pakistan.  Afghanistan, itself, well, that's been written off and/or bought off.

    I didn't get that intention at all (none / 0) (#88)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:56:18 PM EST
    Interesting (none / 0) (#89)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 08:57:06 PM EST
    No, Afghanistan is the mission. (none / 0) (#115)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 09:23:53 PM EST
    there might be focus on Al Qaida in the tribal areas, and serious attitudes-- wahabbi'ism in Pakistan, but Afghanistan is ours and, to a lesser extent NATO's. I would venture that PAkistan, with little or no 'boots on the ground' type of aid, will handle its internal issues. Of course, Pakistan (at least the tribal areas, with aid from Pakistani intelligence) could flare up, leaving the nuclear question open...


    Parent
    Well, my feeling is that Afghanistan is (none / 0) (#172)
    by KeysDan on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 09:40:27 AM EST
     the mission in that it is in volley with India and Pakistan and is strategic for thwarting Pakistani destabilization--at least more than it is already.   The timelines for beginning to exit do not support much more, and the Afghan Taliban can just lay in the weeds until our troops move on, and Karzai and the Talliban can strike a deal.

    Parent
    WSWS: Oppose escalation of Afghan-Pakistan war! (none / 0) (#153)
    by Andreas on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 12:20:12 AM EST
    Oppose Obama's escalation of the Afghan-Pakistan war!

    Withdraw all troops now!

    Obama's speech last night, which packaged the deployment of an additional 30,000 US troops to Afghanistan as the prelude to withdrawal, was a cynical exercise in evasion, double-talk and falsification.

    The new deployment is a major escalation of an unpopular war that will lead to the deaths of countless thousands of Afghanis and Pakistanis and a significant rise in US casualties. Indeed, many of the West Point cadets who were assembled to listen to the president's speech will be sent to Afghanistan to fight in a war that the majority of Americans oppose.

    Obama's invocation of the attacks of September 11, 2001 to portray the war as a defense against terrorism is a fraud. The real reason for the occupation of Afghanistan--widely discussed within the foreign policy establishment--is to maintain a dominant position in oil-rich Central Asia in the interests of the global strategy of American imperialism.

    Oppose Obama's escalation of the Afghan-Pakistan war!
    Withdraw all troops now!

    2 December 2009, By the World Socialist Web Site editorial board


    Didn't watch the speech (none / 0) (#159)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 07:13:06 AM EST
    But I heard there was some footage of a few cadets snoozing away during the speech - anyone see that?

    Was this comedy hour? (none / 0) (#171)
    by DancingOpossum on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 09:37:56 AM EST
    Honestly, I didn't know that staid, "cool" Obama did comedy, but this stuff is pure gold:

    America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country.

    (We're here to help you build schools! No, really! And free your women, because we go to war over stuff like that, honestly.)

    in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad,

    (Mostly by our bombs, sanctions, illegal invasions, but oh look! Is that a WMD?)

    Well, I'm not laughing. The bodies are piling up too fast and the quagmire deepens and there's no end in sight to the blood, death, and despair we've brought and continue to bring. We are war criminals, period, and Obama has inherited that mantle whether he likes it or not, whether (as seems likely) anything will ever be done about it.