Author
|
Topic: Afghanistan: And the wheels kept falling off in all directions (Read 2976 times) |
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
 
|
 |
Re:Afghanistan: And the wheels kept falling off in all directions
« Reply #15 on: 2009-09-21 11:44:30 » |
 |
Robert Fisk’s World: Everyone seems to be agreeing with Bin Laden these days
Source: The Independent
Authors: Robert Fisk
Dated: 2009-09-19
Only Obama, it seems, fails to get the message that we’re losing Afghanistan
Obama and Osama are at last participating in the same narrative. For the US president's critics – indeed, for many critics of the West's military occupation of Afghanistan – are beginning to speak in the same language as Obama's (and their) greatest enemy.
There is a growing suspicion in America that Obama has been sucked into the heart of the Afghan darkness by ex-Bushie Robert Gates – once more the Secretary of Defence – and by journalist-adored General David Petraeus whose military "surges" appear to be as successful as the Battle of the Bulge in stemming the insurgent tide in Afghanistan as well as in Iraq.
No wonder Osama bin Laden decided to address "the American people" this week. "You are waging a hopeless and losing war," he said in his 9/11 eighth anniversary audiotape. "The time has come to liberate yourselves from fear and the ideological terrorism of neoconservatives and the Israeli lobby." There was no more talk of Obama as a "house Negro" although it was his "weakness", bin Laden contended, that prevented him from closing down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In any event, Muslim fighters wold wear down the US-led coalition in Afghanistan "like we exhausted the Soviet Union for 10 years until it collapsed". Funny, that. It's exactly what bin Laden told me personally in Afghanistan – four years before 9/11 and the start of America's 2001 adventure south of the Amu Darya river.
Almost on cue this week came those in North America who agree with Obama – albeit they would never associate themselves with the Evil One, let alone dare question Israel's cheerleading for the Iraqi war. "I do not believe we can build a democratic state in Afghanistan," announces Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who chairs the senate intelligence committee. "I believe it will remain a tribal entity." And Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker, does not believe "there is a great deal of support for sending more troops to Afghanistan".
Colin Kenny, chair of Canada's senate committee on national security and defence, said this week that "what we hoped to accomplish in Afghanistan has proved to be impossible. We are hurtling towards a Vietnam ending".
Close your eyes and pretend those last words came from the al-Qa'ida cave. Not difficult to believe, is it? Only Obama, it seems, fails to get the message. Afghanistan remains for him the "war of necessity". Send yet more troops, his generals plead. And we are supposed to follow the logic of this nonsense. The Taliban lost in 2001. Then they started winning again. Then we had to preserve Afghan democracy. Then our soldiers had to protect – and die – for a second round of democratic elections. Then they protected – and died – for fraudulent elections. Afghanistan is not Vietnam, Obama assures us. And then the good old German army calls up an air strike – and zaps yet more Afghan civilians.
It is instructive to turn at this moment to the Canadian army, which has in Afghanistan fewer troops than the Brits but who have suffered just as ferociously; their 130th soldier was killed near Kandahar this week. Every three months, the Canadian authorities publish a scorecard on their military "progress" in Afghanistan – a document that is infinitely more honest and detailed than anything put out by the Pentagon or the Ministry of Defence – which proves beyond peradventure (as Enoch Powell would have said) that this is Mission Impossible or, as Toronto's National Post put it in an admirable headline three days' ago, "Operation Sleepwalk". The latest report, revealed this week, proves that Kandahar province is becoming more violent, less stable and less secure – and attacks across the country more frequent – than at any time since the fall of the Taliban in 2001. There was an "exceptionally high" frequency of attacks this spring compared with 2008.
There was a 108 per cent increase in roadside bombs. Afghans are reporting that they are less satisfied with education and employment levels, primarily because of poor or non-existent security. Canada is now concentrating only on the security of Kandahar city, abandoning any real attempt to control the province.
Canada's army will be leaving Afghanistan in 2011, but so far only five of the 50 schools in its school-building project have been completed. Just 28 more are "under construction". But of Kandahar province's existing 364 schools, 180 have been forced to close. Of progress in "democratic governance" in Kandahar, the Canadian report states that the capacity of the Afghan government is "chronically weak and undermined by widespread corruption". Of "reconciliation" – whatever that means these days – "the onset of the summer fighting season and the concentration of politicians and activists for the August elections discouraged expectations of noteworthy initiatives...".
Even the primary aim of polio eradication – Ottawa's most favoured civilian project in Afghanistan – has defeated the Canadian International Development Agency, although this admission is cloaked in truly Blair-like (or Brown-like) mendacity. As the Toronto Star revealed in a serious bit of investigative journalism this week, the aim to "eradicate" polio with the help of UN and World Health Organisation money has been quietly changed to the "prevention of transmission" of polio. Instead of measuring the number of children "immunised" against polio, the target was altered to refer only to the number of children "vaccinated". But of course, children have to be vaccinated several times before they are actually immune.
And what do America's Republican hawks – the subject of bin Laden's latest sermon – now say about the Afghan catastrophe? "More troops will not guarantee success in Afghanistan," failed Republican contender and ex-Vietnam vet John McCain told us this week. "But a failure to send them will be a guarantee of failure." How Osama must have chuckled as this preposterous announcement echoed around al-Qa'ida's dark cave.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Afghanistan: And the wheels kept falling off in all directions
« Reply #16 on: 2009-09-24 16:17:40 » |
|
America has been here before
It's shades of Vietnam as U.S. commanders beg for more troops to fight in Afghanistan
Source: Toronto Sun
Authors: Eric Margolis
Dated: 2009-09-24
We should hang a huge neon sign over Afghanistan: "CAUTION: DEJA VU."
Afghanistan's much ballyhooed recent election staged by its foreign occupiers turned out to be a fraud wrapped up in a farce -- as this column predicted a month ago. It was as phony and meaningless as U.S.-run elections in Vietnam in the 1970s.
Canada played a shameful role in facilitating this obviously rigged vote.
Meanwhile, American and NATO generals running the Afghan war amazingly warn they risk being beaten by Taliban tribesmen in spite of their 107,000 soldiers, B-1 heavy bombers, F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, Apache and AC-130 gunships, heavy artillery, tanks, radars, killer drones, cluster bombs, white phosphorus, rockets, and space surveillance.
Washington has spent some $250 billion in Afghanistan since 2001. Canada won't even reveal how many billions it has spent. Each time the U.S. sent more troops and bombed more villages, Afghan resistance sharply intensified and Taliban expanded its control, today over 55% of the country.
Now, U.S. commanders are begging for at least 40,000 more U.S. troops -- after President Barack Obama just tripled the number of American soldiers there. Shades of Vietnam-style "mission creep." Ghost of Gen. William Westmoreland, rattle your chains.
The director of U.S. national intelligence just revealed Washington spent $75 billion US last year on intelligence, employing 200,000 people. Embarrassingly, the U.S. still can't find Osama bin Laden or Mullah Omar after hunting them for eight years. Washington now fears Taliban will launch a Vietnam-style Tet offensive against major cities.
This week, in a wildly overdue observation, U.S. military chief Adm. Mike Mullen told Congress, we must rapidly build the Afghan army and police."
'Vietnamization'
But the U.S. record in foreign army-building is not encouraging. Remember "Vietnamization?" That was the Pentagon's effort to build a South Vietnamese army that could stand on its own, without U.S. air cover, supplies, and "advisers." In early 1975, it collapsed and ran.
Any student of Imperialism 101 knows that after invading a resource-rich or strategic nation you immediately put a local stooge in power, use disaffected minorities to run the government (divide and conquer), and build a native mercenary army. Such troops, commanded by white officers, were called "sepoys" in the British Indian Army and "askaris" in British East Africa.
America's attempts to build an Afghan sepoy army of 250,000 failed miserably. The 80,000 men raised to date are 95% illiterate and only on the job for money to feed their families. They have no loyalty to the corrupt western-installed government in Kabul. CIA's 74,000 "contractors" (read mercenaries) in Afghanistan are more reliable.
But the biggest problem in Afghanistan, as always, is tribalism. Many of the U.S.-raised Afghan army troops are minority Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazara who used to collaborate with the Soviets. They are scorned by the majority Pashtun tribes as enemies and foreign stooges. These U.S.-paid troops also know they will face death when the U.S. and its western allies eventually quit Afghanistan.
The Soviets had a much better understanding of Afghanistan than the American military, which one senior British general recently called, "culturally ignorant." Moscow built an Afghan government army of around 240,000 men. Many were loyal Communists. They sometimes fought well, as I experienced in combat against them near Jalalabad. But, in the end, they smelled defeat and crumbled. The Soviet-backed strongman, Mohammad Najibullah, was castrated and slowly hanged from a crane.
The American command, deprived of men and resources by the Bush administration, only managed to cobble together an armed rabble of 80,000 Afghans. The Afghan army, like the post-Saddam Iraqi army, is led by white officers -- in this case, Americans designated "trainers" or "advisers."
Afghanistan keeps giving me deja vu back to the old British Empire, and flashbacks to those wonderful epic films of the Raj, Drums, Lives of a Bengal Lancer, and Kim. The British imperialists did it much, much better, and with a lot more style. Many of their imperial subjects even admired and liked them. We should hang a huge neon sign over Afghanistan: "CAUTION: DEJA VU."
Afghanistan's much ballyhooed recent election staged by its foreign occupiers turned out to be a fraud wrapped up in a farce -- as this column predicted a month ago. It was as phony and meaningless as U.S.-run elections in Vietnam in the 1970s.
Canada played a shameful role in facilitating this obviously rigged vote.
Meanwhile, American and NATO generals running the Afghan war amazingly warn they risk being beaten by Taliban tribesmen in spite of their 107,000 soldiers, B-1 heavy bombers, F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, Apache and AC-130 gunships, heavy artillery, tanks, radars, killer drones, cluster bombs, white phosphorus, rockets, and space surveillance.
Washington has spent some $250 billion in Afghanistan since 2001. Canada won't even reveal how many billions it has spent. Each time the U.S. sent more troops and bombed more villages, Afghan resistance sharply intensified and Taliban expanded its control, today over 55% of the country.
Now, U.S. commanders are begging for at least 40,000 more U.S. troops -- after President Barack Obama just tripled the number of American soldiers there. Shades of Vietnam-style "mission creep." Ghost of Gen. William Westmoreland, rattle your chains.
The director of U.S. national intelligence just revealed Washington spent $75 billion US last year on intelligence, employing 200,000 people. Embarrassingly, the U.S. still can't find Osama bin Laden or Mullah Omar after hunting them for eight years. Washington now fears Taliban will launch a Vietnam-style Tet offensive against major cities.
This week, in a wildly overdue observation, U.S. military chief Adm. Mike Mullen told Congress, we must rapidly build the Afghan army and police."
'Vietnamization'
But the U.S. record in foreign army-building is not encouraging. Remember "Vietnamization?" That was the Pentagon's effort to build a South Vietnamese army that could stand on its own, without U.S. air cover, supplies, and "advisers." In early 1975, it collapsed and ran.
Any student of Imperialism 101 knows that after invading a resource-rich or strategic nation you immediately put a local stooge in power, use disaffected minorities to run the government (divide and conquer), and build a native mercenary army. Such troops, commanded by white officers, were called "sepoys" in the British Indian Army and "askaris" in British East Africa.
America's attempts to build an Afghan sepoy army of 250,000 failed miserably. The 80,000 men raised to date are 95% illiterate and only on the job for money to feed their families. They have no loyalty to the corrupt western-installed government in Kabul. CIA's 74,000 "contractors" (read mercenaries) in Afghanistan are more reliable.
But the biggest problem in Afghanistan, as always, is tribalism. Many of the U.S.-raised Afghan army troops are minority Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazara who used to collaborate with the Soviets. They are scorned by the majority Pashtun tribes as enemies and foreign stooges. These U.S.-paid troops also know they will face death when the U.S. and its western allies eventually quit Afghanistan.
The Soviets had a much better understanding of Afghanistan than the American military, which one senior British general recently called, "culturally ignorant." Moscow built an Afghan government army of around 240,000 men. Many were loyal Communists. They sometimes fought well, as I experienced in combat against them near Jalalabad. But, in the end, they smelled defeat and crumbled. The Soviet-backed strongman, Mohammad Najibullah, was castrated and slowly hanged from a crane.
The American command, deprived of men and resources by the Bush administration, only managed to cobble together an armed rabble of 80,000 Afghans. The Afghan army, like the post-Saddam Iraqi army, is led by white officers -- in this case, Americans designated "trainers" or "advisers."
Afghanistan keeps giving me deja vu back to the old British Empire, and flashbacks to those wonderful epic films of the Raj, Drums, Lives of a Bengal Lancer, and Kim. The British imperialists did it much, much better, and with a lot more style. Many of their imperial subjects even admired and liked them.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Afghanistan: And the wheels kept falling off in all directions
« Reply #17 on: 2009-10-01 14:47:55 » |
|
The McChrystal Method
Our Afghan commander wants more troops for a strategy that cannot win
Source: The American Conservative
Authors: Jeff Huber
Dated: 2009-09-29
“You can’t kid yourself that you know what’s going on. … You just can’t make an assessment.” [ Gen. Stanley McChrystal, “60 Minutes“ ]
Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s “60 Minutes” infomercial erases any doubt that the Pentagon and its supporters are waging unrestricted information warfare against our commander in chief. The war lobby would have us believe that unless President Obama accedes immediately to McChrystal’s request for additional “resources” in Afghanistan, all will be lost and the Islamofascist hordes will breach our shores and devour us. [ Hermit : And Arianna Huffington of HuffPuff is sounding more and more like a demented Zionist - or any neocon before the USA's illegal invasion of Iraq. ]
What’s missing from the discussion is that the arguments in favor of supporting McChrystal’s proposed strategy, and McChrystal’s strategy itself, are insane.
Hawks in Congress like Mitch McConnell, John McCain, and John Boehner say that failure to act quickly to obey McChrystal’s demands will put our troops in danger. It never occurs to these yahooligans that the top way to put troops in danger is to commit them to combat without thinking about why you’re doing it.
In his “60 Minutes” interview, McChrystal warns that overwhelming firepower from the United States is not the way to win the Afghan War. He already has an overwhelming firepower advantage in Afghanistan, and the rumor mill has it that he’s about to ask for more, to the tune of as many as 45,000 additional U.S. troops. [not just a rumour any longer (cf McChrystal's Report, infra). ]
President Obama said that he would only approve another escalation if he has “absolute clarity about what the strategy is going to be.” The strategy described in McChrystal’s report on Afghanistan is opaque at best.
McChrystal says, “We must conduct classic counterinsurgency operations” and states that success depends not on “seizing terrain or destroying insurgent forces” but on “gaining the support of the people.” That’s laughable considering that classic clear-hold-build counterinsurgency operations involve seizing terrain and destroying the insurgent forces that occupy it.
Another aspect of classic counterinsurgency operations, as defined in the celebrated 2006 counterinsurgency manual that Gen. David Petraeus supposedly wrote (he “wrote” his signature on the endorsement letter) is to “continuously secure the people and separate them from the insurgents.” The notion that we can separate the people in Afghanistan from the insurgents is mad. Good luck finding an Afghan “civilian” who doesn’t have a blood tie to an insurgent.
Supporting the “government political apparatus to replace the insurgent apparatus,” as the manual dictates, is a recipe for failure. Hamad Karzai’s regime is more corrupt and incompetent than the Taliban apparatus we replaced when we initially went into Afghanistan. [i] [ Hermit : Though probably not as corrupt as the US Government. ] McChrystal admits that Afghans have “little reason to support their government.”
The primary justification for the next round of escalation is that we need to defeat al-Qaeda, which McChrystal admits he sees no major sign of in Afghanistan. [b]So, his argument goes, in order to disrupt al-Qaeda’s terror network, we need to occupy a country al-Qaeda is not in. The concern is that if the Taliban again becomes the official government, it will invite al-Qaeda back into Afghanistan. Why would we care if al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan or Pakistan? Their iPhones work equally well in either place, as they do from any spot on the planet, and we cannot occupy every spot on the planet.
The al-Qaeda juggernaut we have been programmed to quake in fear of doesn’t amount to much. As former CIA officer Philip Giraldi recently noted, “An assessment by France’s highly regarded Paris Institute of Political Studies [suggests that] Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda has likely been reduced to a core group of eight to ten terrorists who are on the run more often than not.”
The counterinsurgency manual calls for 20 to 25 counterinsurgent troops per 1,000 residents. [ Hermit : Which is exactly what I said before the USA's ludicrous invasion of Afghanistan on spurious justification when the Bush Administration wqas asserting that fewer than one-tenth of this would be required. ] For the sake of hunting down fewer than a dozen evildoers who are somewhere other than Afghanistan, McChrystal and the rest of the war mafia advocate escalating the force level in Afghanistan to a half-million troops. McChrystal wants to train Afghans to fill 400,000 of those billets. He’d be better off training 400,000 German Shepherds. Our attempts at training Iraq’s security forces were a complete bust, and Iraq was once a real country with a real army, something we can’t say of Afghanistan.
Petraeus, who along with Joint Chiefs chairman Adm. Mike Mullen has endorsed McChrystal’s recommendations, says, “I don’t think anyone can guarantee that it will work out even if we apply a lot more resources. But it won’t work out if we don’t.” Hawkish Michael O’Hanlon of the [ Hermit : Nest of neocons ] Brookings Institute, who tends to “believe in the strategy,” admits that “even if we do everything right, we could still fail.” Endorsements don’t get more weasel-worded than that.
In theory, the Afghanistan conflict is about combating global terrorism, but counterinsurgency “expert” David Kilcullen, an adviser to both Petraeus and McChrystal, says the Obama counterterrorism mandate isn’t “at the top of my list.” One of Kilcullen’s main arguments for continuing the Afghanistan commitment is that it will preserve the future of the NATO alliance, which, more than a decade after the end of the Cold War, serves no viable function.
John Nagl, another counterinsurgency expert, gushes like a schoolgirl over the potential of the Afghanistan quagmire. “This is counterinsurgency['s] best practice,” he says. “This is wonderful.” Jolly old fun: let’s get good at this so we can do it again and again and again. Defense contracts for all my friends! (As of June, the Afghan war cost us $6.7 billion per month.)
The pro-war tank thinkery is reviving the Islamo-fabulist wheeze that says if we bring our troops home, the “evil ones” will follow us here. The evil ones can’t get here from there. It’s too far to jump or swim, and nobody has the kind of navy or air force it takes to bring a force sufficient to invade and occupy America from across the oceans.
A study conducted in 2008 by the globally respected security analysts at Rand Corporation illustrated conclusively that military force is by far the least effective method of combating terrorism. Policing and political solutions account for 83 percent of success against terrorist groups. Rand’s finest concluded that the best approach to combating terrorism should involve “a light U.S. military footprint or none at all.” McChrystal and his advocates insist on the opposite.
Sun Tzu warned, “If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” The looniest aspect of the Afghanistan debate is McChrystal’s stunning admission that it’s impossible to tell what’s actually going on. We understand more about the Klingons and the Vulcans than we’ll ever know about the Afghans. We don’t know what we’re doing in Afghanistan, and the war fanatics tell us we need to do more of it.
The bromide that winners never quit and quitters never win is bunker-mentality bunk. Winners know when to quit and losers don’t; proof of this occurs everyday in Las Vegas. For Obama to go along with McChrystal’s proposal would be an all-in bet against odds longer than the distance between Washington D.C. and Kabul, an enormous risk for no appreciable pay off.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Afghanistan: And the wheels kept falling off in all directions
« Reply #18 on: 2009-10-15 20:46:59 » |
|
Report: Obama Poised to Announce 45,000 Troop Escalation in Afghanistan
British Government's Troop Surge Came Amid Claims of US Assurances
[ Hermit : Note that this is already on top of the troops sent earlier this year - which miraculously doubled, because it turned out that half the troops sent weren't "fighting troops", but "support troops", and the 19,000 "top-up troops" provided last week; so the US will soon have comfortably in excess of 1,000 troops stationed in Afghanistan per estimated al-Quaeda member left there. And some idiots imagine that this "war" is won, winnable, or perhaps one day will be won - when they can't even define what a "victory" might look like. ]
Source: Antiwar.com
Authors: Jason Ditz
Dated: 2009-10-14
The Obama Administration has reportedly told the British government that it intends to announce an escalation of another 45,000 troops in Afghanistan, potentially as soon as next week.
The report comes despite claims that the Obama Administration is continuing to hold talks about the strategy, though this seems to be more based on the question of whether to emphasize the failed battle against the Taliban or focus what will soon be over 100,000 troops on fighting the roughly 100 al-Qaeda members reportedly in the nation.
Britain announced that it intends to send another 500 soldiers to Afghanistan to bolster its 9,000-strong force. The announcement reportedly came as a result of the US assurances, and despite the growing domestic opposition to the war.
Several Democrats, including House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, have expressed reservations about the massive escalation, particularly coming just seven months after the administration’s last escalation. Yet Rep. Hoyer urged fellow Democrats to go along with whatever President Obama decides.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Afghanistan: And the wheels kept falling off in all directions
« Reply #19 on: 2009-10-17 00:02:44 » |
|
Officials: Gen. McChrystal Now Seeking 80,000 Additional Troops for Afghanistan
Military Doesn't Have Remotely That Many Available
[ Hermit : Place pea on table. Place cups over pea. Shuffle cups. Attempt to count troops. Remember when you fail, this is the war that was already "won". ]
Source: Antiwar.com
Authors: Jason Ditz
Dated: 2009-10-16
When General McChrystal was first reported as requesting 40,000 additional troops for Afghanistan, many people balked at the massive number. Not long after, the number was quietly revised to 45,000. Last Friday it became clear that the general had actually requested over 60,000.
Now McClatchy Newspapers is citing officials in the Obama Administration and military as saying that the General’s “low-risk” option was actually even higher, asking for 80,000 additional troops for the war in Afghanistan.
All the while, the 40,000 number has remained out there as a “medium-risk” option. The once massive escalation, suddenly reimagined as a “compromise” position in the face of outrageously large demands that have since been made. McChrystal reportedly isn’t thrilled with 40,000, which he has described as the absolute minimum needed.
The rub, however, is that with 68,000 US troops already in Afghanistan and 120,000+ still in Iraq, in addition to all of America’s assorted other imperial requirements around the world, the US military simply doesn’t have anywhere near the number of additional troops just lying around that the general wants to throw at the eight year long conflict. Officials are now saying that, even with the disastrous economy making wartime recruiting remarkably easy, they can only send about 30,000 more troops without putting undue strain on the Army and Marine Corps.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:Afghanistan: And the wheels kept falling off in all directions
« Reply #20 on: 2009-10-17 06:35:45 » |
|
[Blunderov] I'm going to post something which might at first seem like one of the usual offerings from our troll - heavily snipped you will all doubtless be gratified to know But, reading with a wide gaze, it will become readily apparent to all but the most obtuse what a pathetic and bankrupt philosophy the American project in Afghanistan was and is become.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/10/02/19-reasons-to-win-in-afghanistan/
19 Reasons To Win In Afghanistan
Posted October 2nd, 2009 at 12.55pm in American Leadership, Protect America.
This email is making the rounds on .mil addresses:
There have been many arguments in the past four weeks to withdraw. We have compiled a short review of other social network debates to summarize the basic arguments for staying in the Afghanistan. The 19th reason has been added at the bottom.
1. Afghanistan and Pakistan - This Region is Ground Zero for Anti-U.S.
2. U.S. Credibility is at stake.
3. U.S. Presence in Afghanistan has served as a proximity deterrent for Al Qaeda.
4. Counterterrorist campaigns cannot be waged from a distance.
5. Abandoning Afghanistan will move the War’s Frontline from Overseas to the Homeland.
6. Cost-Benefit Analysis favors Forward Presence.
7. President Obama and GEN Stanley McChrystal have both claimed that the fight to stabilize Afghanistan is winnable.
8. Today’s U.S. All Volunteer force is qualitatively a more capable military force than Vietnam predecessor.
9. U.S. Precedent for Bringing Stability in Iraq and Kosovo.
10. Afghanistan provides the venue to Learn about the Long Term Adversary.
11. U.S. Presence Denies Sanctuary of the Adversary within Ungoverned Spaces.
12. U.S. Presence, if managed properly, can serve to Drain the Terrorist Recruitment Swamp.
13. The Germany Precedent.
14. Loss of Superior Force and Infrastructure Posture against Iran.
15. Strategic rhetoric of an early withdrawal prolongs any conflict.
16. Other Models of U.S. Occupation Beyond Vietnam.
17. U.S. Needs to Honor the Ultimate Sacrifice of U.S. soldiers on the fields of Afghanistan by staying the course.
18. Whole of Government Approach
19. The Taliban is largely unpopular and can be defeated.
In Summary, multiple threats are being addressed by the U.S. presence in Afghanistan. They include: dealing with the primary threats of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, preparing for a destabilized Pakistan with nuclear weapons, posturing for a future hostile Iran, and reducing the long-term recruitment of radical Islamic terrorists from this region.
At the center of debate, however, is the question of whether the average U.S. voter truly believes that Al Qaeda and Taliban can seriously pose a threat to U.S. national security interests at home and abroad? If yes, then it becomes questionable for a decision to willfully deliver strategic victory to a weakened terrorist network by pulling out of Afghanistan.
[Bl.] Nauseating isn't it? Pathetic too. Quite apart from the circular reasoning and the misrepresentation, and indeed, outright invention, of various facts; the underlying assumption seems to be that warfare is a perfectly reasonable means of pursuing whatever abstracted bees might be buzzing about in Washington bonnets. (Amongst civilized people it is of course more usual to consider war to be an absolute last resort of dire and obvious necessity.) Of course a great deal abracadabra is incanted over the repelling of an entirely specious threat to the "homeland" (!) - one must after all jump through the tiresome of hoops of both international law and human decency in order to justify warfare to the punters - but an examination of this magick reveals a cauldron of slippery slopes sufficient enough to equip a ski resort. The doctrine of "we have to fight them there so that we don't have to fight them here" does not seem to me to be able to withstand even cursory scrutiny. It is not at all clear, to me anyway, how anyone who wished to attack the American mainland would be significantly impeded from that objective by the efforts of troops operating many thousands of miles away from that venue. To hear the Chickenhawks you would imagine that they had a conventional army pinned down in a conventional engagement. (When, as they say, the only tool in your box is a hammer everything looks like a nail.) Furthermore this doctrine seems to me to be very foolish politics too. Imagine if al Quaeda, or indeed anyone, managed such an attack anyway? (They quite conceivably might and if I was them my very best efforts would be devoted to that very end.) America will then, by its own definition, have lost the war at one single stroke!
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Afghanistan: And the wheels kept falling off in all directions
« Reply #21 on: 2009-10-17 10:30:34 » |
|
I have only an objection and a niggle to Blunderov's admirable summary. The niggle is that once the dimly glowing 3W neocon chicken hawks have attempted to erect an edifice of quick-frozen piss and wind upon a slippery slope, it is no longer useful for anything except to illustrate collective idiocy. And not entirely incidentally, tends to smell rather funny. The much more serious objection is that I find the vastly over-applied metaphor of the hammer and nail suggestive of a wholly inappropriate degree of honest though inappropriate determination, intent, purpose, thrust, force and decision. None of these words apply in the slightest measure to these dangerous buffoons, who never saw a slippery slope they didn't find the need to attempt to build upon, as they tumble all unknowingly down it. For this reason, I would like to introduce a new and, I think, more appropriate metaphor to describe the American Enterprise Institute and ilk, their emulators, hangers-on, sock-puppets and supporters, that of the screw extractor. As in, "when the only tool in your box is a screw extractor all you end up with is a box of loose screws."
Love
Hermit
PS, the cream of the joke is that the inappropriately named US intelligence services estimate that al Quaeda, whose involvement in 9/11 remains entirely speculative, now has fewer than 100 effectives - and the only thing that can make the unpopular Taliban look appealing to anyone is the ongoing American presence in a fundamentalist heartland deliberately instigated by the US as a way to drag down that other great empire of incompetence, the USSR. The phrase, "hoist by their own petard" comes irresistibly to mind.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:Afghanistan: And the wheels kept falling off in all directions
« Reply #22 on: 2009-10-25 02:59:56 » |
|
www.opednews
The Circular Logic of Fighting the War in Afghanistan
opednews.com
October 24, 2009 at 04:21:32
For OpEdNews: Dean Hartwell - Writer
Why do we have troops in Afghanistan?
We have to stop Al Qaeda.
Why do we have to stop Al Qaeda?
They are terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.
Where is the proof they attacked us on 9/11?
It is in the 9/11 Report.
Why should I believe the 9/11 Report?
It is official.
If it is official, does that mean it is necessarily accurate?
No, but it is.
Then why does the 9/11 Report omit mention of Building 7 and the simulation exercises?
The Committee thought them irrelevant.
Why does it accuse by name at least seven “suicide hijackers” who are still alive today?
These hijackers may have used false names.
So these “hijackers,” thought to be Al Qaeda, may really have come from somewhere else?
Yes.
So we may be attacking the wrong people?
Yes.
So why don't we leave?
We have to stay there and drive out the Taliban.
Why do we have to do that?
They oppress women.
Don't the Saudis and other regimes we support do that?
Yes.
So why attack the Taliban?
They harbored Osama bin Laden.
So what?
Bin Laden directed the attacks on 9/11.
How do you know that?
He confessed.
When?
He said he did it on the tapes we have seen over the years.
How do you know it was bin Laden?
It looked like him and the experts in the government said it was him.
If it was bin Laden, why does his appearance and voice change from tape to tape?
He is a master of disguise.
Why in one video does he wear jewelry, which he had previously said men should not wear?
He's a con artist.
Why have Arabic translators said that the person in the videos never confesses to 9/11?
They are bought off.
Who bought them off?
Conspiracy theorists did.
Which conspiracy theorists – the ones who say bin Laden conspired with Al Qaeda?
No.
Which ones?
The ones that say our government acted to attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Why would they make up a conspiracy?
They want to convince people to get our troops out of Afghanistan.
Why do we have troops in Afghanistan?
www.deanhartwell.com
Dean Hartwell has written the newly-released book "Dead Men Talking: Consequences of Government Lies" and previously wrote "Truth Matters: How the Voters Can Take Back Their Nation."
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Afghanistan: And the wheels kept falling off in all directions
« Reply #23 on: 2009-11-04 01:56:21 » |
|
‘Twas Brillig in Bananastan
Source: Antiwar.com
Authors: Jeff Huber
Dated: 2009-11-04
Commander Jeff Huber, U.S. Navy (retired), writes at Pen and Sword.
Who’s the bigger fraud: Hamid Karzai, or the phalanx of Western toads who are hailing him as the "legitimate" president of Afghanistan?
To review the bidding: Karzai appointed a gang of crooks as election officials who threw the original election to his corner. UN election monitors tossed out a million or so votes, so Karzai didn’t have a majority, and a runoff election was required. Karzai at first refused to face a runoff, but John Kerry supposedly talked him into accepting one.
Karzai’s main opponent, Abdullah Abdullah, demanded a change in electoral officials, saying that with the same people in charge, the runoff would be as crooked as the original election. Karzai refused to change the officials. Abdullah refused to participate in the runoff election. Karzai’s handpicked officials canceled the runoff election.
Now Karzai is the "legitimate" president of Afghanistan.
Now you know why I use the term "Bananastan" to describe Afghanistan and Pakistan. They’re the Central Asian versions of a Banana Republic.
Our inexcusable Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had said the runoff would be legitimate even if Abdullah boycotted it. Now it’s legitimate even though it won’t take place. Hillary is enough to make you pine for Condi Rice. Heck, she’s enough to make you pine for John Bolton. Hillary is to diplomacy what jackhammers are to music. [ Hermit : I think he exaggerates about John Bolton. I hope he does. Bolton is to diplomacy what a chorus of rock crushers are to Act 3 of La boh`eme.]
Karzai runs one of the most corrupt governments on the planet. But that’s going to change, now that he’s legitimate, so they say. President Obama wants a "new chapter" in the Karzai regime. Obama says he’s looking for "a sense on the part of President Karzai that, after some difficult years in which there has been some drift, that in fact he’s going to move boldly and forcefully forward and take advantage of the international community’s interest in his country to initiate reforms internally."
What a hanky load. Obama just let Karzai get away with stealing an election, and he expects the guy to reform? Obama’s from Chicago; he knows better than that.
We’re on the wrong side of the Afghanistan equation. Not one American kid should be put in harm’s way to prop up the Karzai government. Muhammad Omar and his Taliban are more legitimate than Karzai.
Nick Horne, who recently resigned from the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), says we have failed to "tackle the fundamental political issues underlying the insurgency."
"The insurgency is winning not so much because the Taliban’s ideology and platform have popular appeal," Horne writes, "but because the Afghan government is seen as corrupt, unrepresentative, and ineffective."
Peter Galbraith, who was sacked as deputy head of the UN mission in Afghanistan for blowing the whistle on the election fraud, says the corruption "is beyond blatant. This is in your face. It has become clear that Karzai has no intention of instituting reforms."
Senior Foreign Service officer Matthew Hoh, who quit his Afghanistan post, noted in his resignation letter that "our backing of the Afghan government in its current form continues to distance the government from the people." Hoh made particular note of the Karzai government’s "glaring corruption and unabashed graft" and described Karzai as a "president whose confidants and chief advisers comprise drug lords and war crimes villains, who mock our own rule of law and counternarcotics efforts."
We have arrived at another nexus in the narrative of the insane American empire. Just as the Praetorian Guard caused the fall of Rome by taking control of emperors and the senate, our military and its supporters are fomenting the end times of our republic.
The Long War mafia has pitched its camp in Afghanistan. It has nowhere else to go. It will stay in Iraq as long as it can – I’m convinced it will finagle a way to keep tens of thousands of troops in that country well beyond the December 2011 deadline called for in the status of forces agreement – but that’s not enough overseas commitment to justify the growth of the Army, which is the only real strategic objective of our military these days.
The international bum’s rush to declare Karzai a legitimate president comes on the heels of the revelation that his drug-runner brother Ahmed Wali has been on the CIA payroll to provide security. We’ve been shacking up with a lot of slithy toves in that part of the world. Col. Matiullah Khan, who heads a private army of 2,000 Afghans, makes over $4 million a year for getting two convoys from Kandahar to Tarin Kowt safely each month. Nice work if you can get it.
Our counterinsurgency doctrine is a pile of horse plop. It’s about nation-building: building the kinds of nations that look like Al Capone’s Chicago. It’s about the David Petraeus method: hand out a lot of guns and bribes, make it look like you’re making progress, and let your successor clean up the mess you left behind (or better yet, take the fall for your failures).
That our top generals and flag officers support a plan to send more kids-in-cammies to Afghanistan to prop up Karzai is shameful. Every one of those four-star bastards should be busted down to buck private and forced to retire. These men are supposed to have some sense of stewardship of the people who serve under them. They are, instead, so morally adrift there’s no recognizing a seed of humanity in them. They’re no different from Karzai.
Lamentably, it appears the mad brass hatters are going to get their escalation of the tea party in Afghanistan.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:Afghanistan: And the wheels kept falling off in all directions
« Reply #24 on: 2009-11-04 09:35:09 » |
|
Quote from: Hermit on 2009-11-04 01:56:21
Who’s the bigger fraud: Hamid Karzai, or the phalanx of Western toads who are hailing him as the "legitimate" president of Afghanistan? |
[Blunderov] Meanwhile, back in the USSA...
theonion.com
11.17.04
U.S. Inspires World With Attempt At Democratic Election
NEW YORK—Observers from around the world report that they were inspired and moved by America's most recent attempt to hold a public election in accordance with the standards of a democratic republic.
"After all of the recriminations, infighting, and general madness before the election, the people of this fractured nation still found the courage to show up at the polls," said Anas Salman, an Afghan U.N. official who was in New York during the American electoral experiment. "More than half of America's citizens—a large portion of them women—made a valiant attempt to choose their own leader, even though there was no guarantee their votes would be counted. It was truly inspirational."
In the weeks leading up to the election, both of America's political parties alleged fraud in voter registration. Additionally, experts debated the reliability of electronic voting machines, which experienced problems in trial runs and leave no paper trail. Election officials also bemoaned many states' use of outdated punchcard machines.
Considering such disputes, Salman said he was "touched and gladdened" that voter turnout for the U.S. election nearly approached voter-turnout rates for Afghanistan's first popular elections in October, when 69 percent of citizens cast ballots.
"True, voter turnout in many parts of the world tops 90 percent," Salman said. "But it's understandable that the rate is lower in countries such as Afghanistan, where the government has raised fears of possible terrorist attacks at the polls. Our people showed great courage."
The last American presidential election, held in 2000, was also rife with problems. Myriad scandals arose concerning alleged fraud and ballot tampering. Although the Democratic candidate won the popular vote by a margin of half a million votes, the Republican candidate won the presidency with a strenuously disputed 537-vote lead in Florida, a state governed by his brother.
"Despite the specter of corruption in 2000, and even though the procedural problems which surfaced during the previous election were never remedied, the American people chose to put their faith in the system once again this year," said Joseph Mtume, a Kenyan diplomat who traveled to Ohio to view America's democratic proceedings. "You can't help but feel touched by the determination of these citizens who put their doubts aside to collectively participate in the democratic process. All this in a nation divided by war, where dissent is widespread and the rift between citizens has rarely been higher. It was truly stirring."
Carlos Cruz, an Argentinian diplomat who observed the election in Miami, said he was profoundly moved by America's democratic election.
"With my own eyes, I saw people from all walks of life waiting in long lines to cast their votes, and very few of them were turned away," Cruz said. "They believed in the democratic process, despite the existence of racial gerrymandering of the sort most recently seen in the redistricting of U.S. House seats to negate the impact of Hispanic and black voters in Texas."
Cruz said he was impressed that average citizens still participate in the "current money-dominated electoral process," even though legislators have largely ignored their repeated calls for campaign finance reform.
"Their wide-eyed earnestness was humbling," Cruz said. "Truly, my heart leaps up. I can only hope that, under such demoralizing circumstances, my countrymen would similarly rise together to try and make democracy work."
The multinational watchdog group Organization for Security and Cooperation sent 600 official observers to monitor proceedings, from countries as disparate as North Korea, Syria, and China. Many reported that they came away deeply touched.
"To see a country with such overwhelming problems—problems that affect every last citizen—have so many of its voters feel that they can still influence their leadership... words fail me," said Dae Jung Kim, a North Korean OSC delegate. "Certainly, my report to my own government will emphasize this. I will recommend that my leaders implement such American election-time strategies and tactics as would fit the North Korean model of personal freedom, such as their elegant Electoral College and the inscrutable voting machine."
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Afghanistan: And the wheels kept falling off in all directions
« Reply #25 on: 2009-11-11 12:09:43 » |
|
It isn't Iran Supplying the Taliban, It is the USA
Footage Shows Taliban Handling US Weapons, Ammo - US Has No Idea Where Taliban Got Them
[ Hermit : While the capture of materiel from the US is of course not impossible, I suspect that the majority of the Afghan resistance's supplies of American materiel is from supplies "liberated" from the incredibly long logistical supply routes. ]
Source: Antiwar.com
Authors: Jason Ditz
Dated: 2009-11-10
In footage broadcast today on al-Jazeera, members of the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan were shown handling weapons and ammunition, including mines, which bore US insignias on them.
The Taliban reportedly acquired the weapons from US bases attacked in October in the remote Nuristan Province and the footage was apparently taken in this region, which the US has largely abandoned.
NATO spokesmen confirmed that the equipment shown appeared to be American, but said they had no idea where the Taliban could’ve gotten them. The US insists that forces took all the equipment with them when they abandoned the bases.
Nuristan’s provincial police chief disagreed, however, saying that the US had definitely left ammunition at the base. NATO says it has no intention of conducting any investigation over the footage, though this may well change if American anti-personnel mines start showing up in insurgent attacks.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Afghanistan: And the wheels kept falling off in all directions
« Reply #26 on: 2009-11-11 12:56:29 » |
|
Gorbachev Advises Obama to Withdraw From Afghanistan
No Military Solution, Former Soviet Leader Insists
[ Hermit : If the US had had - and used 450,000 troops to occupy Afghanistan in the first place, which was the minimum conventional NATO COINOPS planning would have required, and engaged in a program of "nation building" from the start, when a program of aid might have created a window for positive involvement, it might have been able to preclude being regarded as an invader and occupier. But it didn't. Today the window is long gone, and a conservative 650,000 troops would be required to control the country sufficiently to allow deployment of civilian programs. That is not going to happen, even if the US wanted to, because it simply does not have the resources, which means that the US is unlikely to achieve any objective it might set in Afghanistan - even were that an immediate withdrawal. ]
Source: Antiwar.com
Authors: Jason Ditz
Dated: 2009-11-10
Mikheil Gorbachev, the last head of state to organize the withdrawal of a failed occupation from Afghanistan, has some advice for President Barack Obama: get out while the getting’s good.
“There is no prospect of a military solution,” Gorbachev warned, “what we need is the reconciliation of Afghan society – and they should be preparing the ground for withdrawal rather than additional troops.”
As the General Secretary of the Soviet Union in the mid 1980’s, Gorbachev oversaw the last four years of the failed decade-long occupation, and materially all of the pullout from the country.
The US government’s war has followed largely the same path as the Soviet one, with ever escalating numbers of troops and rising expectations failing in the face of an ever growing insurgency. [ Hermit : I think that this is stretching the analogy. The USSR was an army masquerading as a state, and was able to put more resources with much shorter supply lines, more and fitter troops (although conscripts) and more appropriate equipment into Afghanistan than the USA can, had less opposition at this point in the life cycle of their occupation of Afghanistan and their puppet government was less corrupt and far more popular than the current mayor of Kabul. ]
When the Soviet Union left Afghanistan, they likewise talked of forming a “national reconciliation government.” Within three years, that government (materially the same Soviet-installed government that was so harshly opposed in the first place) was overthrown by the US-backed mujahideen. [ Hermit : And in a master stroke of irony, is by and large the same group of people that the US ended up appointing to Karzai's puppet anti-Taliban government. ]
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Afghanistan: And the wheels kept falling off in all directions
« Reply #27 on: 2009-12-03 14:39:02 » |
|
Work in Progress
Obama's Afghan policy speech at West Point
[ Hermit : And those who object to illegal wars of occupation who voted for Obama might as well have voted for John McCain. I'll comment on the pervasive dissimulation, blatant lies, intentional mendacity and arrant use of Bush era justifications in-line. Some of my objections are based on Justin Raimondo of antiwar.com's thoughtful rebuttal of Obama's bushit, "Obama’s War Speech: An Unconvincing Flop" which can be read at antiwar.com. He observes, accurately, that something close to this speech was made, repeatedly, by GWBush, as does Glenn Greenwald in "Obama's exceedingly familiar justifications for escalation" at http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/12/01/afghanistan/index.html. Refer e.g. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/George_W._Bush%27s_Second_State_of_the_Union_Address and http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2008/December/20081217171510xjsnommis0.0446741.html. As an interesting aside, I noticed that the transcript had a copyright assertion attached to it. Fascinating to think that if it was "a faithful transcription" then no originality - which is required for a valid copyright - is present, but if originality was present then the transcription is useless. ]
Source: Washington Post
Following is the transcript of President Obama's speech Tuesday at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. (The Post's report on the president's address is here.)
Thank you. Please be seated.
Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our armed services, and to my fellow Americans, I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan, the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion.
It's an extraordinary honor for me to do so here at West Point, where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security and to represent what is finest about our country. [ Hermit : I suggest that the military, whether from West Point or not, do not represent what is "finest" about America. As this may be arguable, I won't class it as a lie. At least Obama didn't arrive in a Harrier wearing a uniform. ]
To address these important issues, it's important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. [ Hermit : This is a blatant lie. The USA was not compelled to fight a war, they chose to fight a war. The USA suffered an unprecedented act of terrorism which was plotted primarily in Germany, Spain and Malaysia, and executed by fifteen hijackers from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon. (Refer the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizers_of_the_September_11,_2001_attacks). None came from Afghanistan. While no evidence has been led against bin Laden who has still not even been indicted, Afghanistan offered to extradite him to Germany (with which they had an extradition treaty). This was turned down by the USA which apparently preferred a war. See http://www.wanttoknow.info for supporting information.]
We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. [ Hermit : The victims were predominantly American. Irrespective of the author, it is safe to assume that as repeated Fatwas from bin Laden and the US intelligence services repeatedly warned, this was a direct consequence of the American presence in the Middle East and support for Israel including weapon systems used repeatedly against the Palestinians and Lebanese. So rather than unasked for, it was expected, anticipated, predictable and predicted. As above, http://www.wanttoknow.info has much supporting information. ]
Were it not for the heroic actions of 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. [ Hermit : The US is a Republic, not a democracy. The targets were chosen due to their representation of financial, military and political power all of which are perceived as being deployed against the Ummah. The Whitehouse. Not heroic. The passengers had been in contact with sources who told them about the other aircraft, and so they could reasonably anticipate dying. Whether the hijackers crashed the plan after attempting to roll it, or the USAF shot it down as reported by NPR that morning, the passengers were not acting heroically but expediently. ]
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. [ Hermit : We do know that al Q'aeda were established and nurtured with assistance and cash from the CIA and were warned about the dangers of this in no uncertain terms. We do not "know" that the hijackers were members of al Q'aeda as this assertion has never been tested in a US court. We do not know that the Taliban "harbored" them, numerous sources show that the Taliban considered them an embarrassment. We don't know if al Q'aeda distorted or defiled Islam, or if as seems likely, it is merely as bloodthirsty and genocidal as Judaism and Christianity. We know that bin Laden used Islamic texts to exhort violent action against American military and citizenry until the stated grievances are reversed, noting "ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries." We also know that, as with Saddam in Iraq, the Taliban killed far fewer Afghans than the Americans have, and also that both these "ruthless, repressive and radical" governments appeared perfectly acceptable to the USA while they served American purposes and before the USA seized power. Which has to make this paragraph a major fail.]
Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al-Qaeda and those who harboured them, an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98-0; the vote in the House was 420-1. [ Hermit : This is specious confabulation at its worst. There never were many members of al Q'aeda in Afghanistan. Today there are fewer than 100. No war was ever declared. No proof has ever been inspected by a court. What was "authorized" has been queried by many of the same people, particularly democrats, as supposedly "authorized" what was desired before 9/11 (Remember "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives" and "The Project for a New American Century") and is the blatant persecution of some of the most powerless and poorest people in the world by what was the most powerful and richest nation. Is this really what was illegally "authorized"? Illegally because the Grand Charter of the UN specifically forbids wars of aggression. Which is what Obama is choosing to wage. ]
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. [ Hermit : Nato was a defence organization with its scope restricted to Europe and the North Atlantic. Now it is an organization with a global purview engaged in offensive actions in the ongoing civil war the US has engineered in Afghanistan. This "development" has never been ratified, is draining Western economies and has no defined end and so can only end badly. ]
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. [ I don't think the UN Security council endorsed two major wars of aggression against people whose main offense has been to be in America's sights, or to the creation of millions of refugees, or to excess deaths in the millions and all to no avail. Terror is a strategy, not an identified enemy, and cannot be "fought" by waging war, but only through police work. Obama is smarter than Bush. He has to know this is a lie. ]
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. [ Hermit : This is another blatant lie. The Taliban agreed that if the US provided evidence that he had been involved in terrorism, that they would hand over bin Laden to Germany with whom they had an extradition treaty, rather than the US with whom they did not. The US found this unacceptable as Germany would not extradite bin Laden without legally compelling evidence of his guilt (which they may not have had) and an undertaking not to impose the death penalty, which the Bush Administration was not prepared to do. ]
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. [ This is farcical. THe Taliban disrupted al Q'aeda before the invasion. The Taliban was the group that the USA instigated, financed and empowered to bring down the Russian backed government of Afghanistan, which the US largely reinstalled after engineering Karzai into power. The "decades of fear" were a result of the USA cynically choosing to use Afghanistan as a vehicle to bleed the USSR dry. As for hope, to quote Raimondo, <<Afghanistan had "reason to hope" – for what? An eight-year occupation? Civil war, repression, aerial assaults, "collateral damage"? Because that is precisely what they got>> ]
At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country. [ Hermit : So the USA engineered the ascent of a former Unocal Oil employee, Hamid Karzai, as the interim president of Afghanistan and placed military bases along the proposed route of the oil pipeline hat the US had been in failed negotiations with the Taliban government. Eight years of intense and escalating civil war later and in a paroxysm of hypocrisy, Obama calls this "lasting peace." ]
Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq war is well-known and need not be repeated here. It's enough to say that, for the next six years, the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention, and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world. [ Hermit : So the problem with the Iraq war was not the destruction of Iraq as a nation, the obliteration of its infrastructure and heath care, the impoverishment and balkanization of its people, refugees and surplus deaths in the millions, but with its impact on American military efficiency and multilateral relations. ]
Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of the men and women in uniform. [ Hermit: Again Raimondo says it well, <<What a crock: we have given Iraqis eight years of utter horror, including hundreds of thousands of dead, countless wounded, a sectarian civil war that still rages, and a government just as tyrannical and unaccountable as the one we overthrew, if not more so. If that’s "success," then I’d hate to see what failure looks like.>> ]
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. [ Hermit : I wonder which Iraqis Obama asked to receive this answer. The country Obama claims we are leaving is a patchwork of tribal enclaves, surplus deaths have run at about 10% of the population (the most vicious punishment on the Roman books was decimation or the execution of 1 in 10), 20% of the population remain refugees, the country is an ecological and environmental disaster, and Iraqis were significantly better off with much better infrastructure under Saddam during the era of the brutal Oil for Food program. This is success? He has to know he is lying. ]
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. Hermit : "has deteriorated" Again we see the passive voice used to attempt to hide a multiplicity of sins. And here we also see the never quite stated rationale behind the USA's latest unannounced and toitally illegal war, that against Pakistan. Which might be better described as a war on the worlds largest and fiercest tribe, the Pushtun. Who never have recognised a border. A further problem with this assertion is that there is NO evidence that the assertions about the al Quaeda leadership being ensconced in the formerly autonomous homeland regions of Pakistan. Which invalidates the above assertion that this war was "legitimised" by the authorisation by Congress a decade ago to hunt down al Q'aeda. ]
Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it's been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient security forces. [ Hermit : When was a "legitimate government" elected in Afghanistan? If a popular vote were held there, and any candidates - including those opposed to the US occupation - allowed to stand, the Taliban would be back in power in a heartbeat, and not just because of tribal affiliations, but because they are the only viable opposition to the ongoing US occupation. Which is why, irrespective of the resources and manpower that the US chooses to waste on Afghanistan, the US Afghan adventure is going to end as unhappily as all the previous occupations of the last 15 centuries or more. ]
Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al-Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to control additional swaths of territory in Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating acts of terrorism against the Pakistani people. [ Hermit : Another lie. al Q'aeda has never sought to overthrow the Afghan government and given US intelligence estimates that fewer than 100 effective al Quaeda operatives remain in Afghanistan, they would be hard pressed to do so. Further, the Taliban has responded to US and US instigated Pakistan government attacks on the Pashtun, but their support is tribal and broad. Such support is not earned by terrorism, but in opposition to perceived oppression. Obama might be trying to justify his war escalation on the historic anti-al Q'aeda vote by the US Congress in the wake of 9/11, but the facts on the ground are in opposition to his assertions. And so the Obama presidency attyempts to reject reality, and a brief glimpse at the Bush administration will tell anyone how that ends up. ]
Now, throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. [ For nearly double the population in *much* harsher terrain. When conventional military wisdom required 20 times that number to engage in effective COINOPS. ]
Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. And that's why, shortly after taking office, I approved a long-standing request for more troops. [ Hermit : The Taliban never re-emerged. They merely respond to the tactical situation and develop their strength every time we perpetrate another atrocity on them. As with any popularly supported guerilla force resisting brutal occupiers, when there are more troops fielded, there is a requirement for more supplies, more infrastructure, a *lot* more attacks and hence casualties. When you increase the number of troops to attempt to harden the targets, you increase the logistic burden and supply requirements resulting in an exponential growth in troop requirements, so entering a vicious cycle. The only way to break this is to stage a withdrawal. ]
After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan and the extremist safe havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al-Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian efforts. [ Which is why it is no longer safe for the UN or any other aid missions to operate anywhere in field and why Pakistan's flimsy government and paper-thin support services are being overrun by refugees who are often also competent guerillas, being members of the world's largest and fiercest tribe. Which will probably end up triggering the in any case probably inevitable resource wars with India and Bangladesh. Which may end up dragging China into the resulting melee. Congratulations O commander-in-chief. Or something. You may well end up rescuing Bush's reputation as America's least competent President ever. ]
Since then, we've made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we've stepped up the pressure on al-Qaeda worldwide. [ Hermit : Taliban are not al Q'aeda and vice versa. Killing the Taliban leaders, who tend to be tribal elders who also are the people who not unusually are the only ones capable of putting a lid on fighting is always stupid. We will need them to negotiate the terms of our surrender when we pull-out. Besides, many of these leaders have been killed repeatedly, along with hundreds of relatives of numerous and fierce tribesmen who tend not to respond by falling into a fit of depression. This falls in the category of assertions without merit of things hoped for without evidence. And it is of course Bush's song. ]
In Pakistan, that nation's army has gone on its largest offensive in years. [ Hermit : After Bush I never thought that I would see an internationally recognized leader claiming that a civil war creating thousands of casualties and millions of refugees in an impoverished nation with a fragile government was a good thing. It does say a lot about Obama's character, competence and appropriateness to receive a Nobel peace prize. ]
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. [ Hermit : The Taliban didn't need to be involved to invalidate the election. Obama's puppet was quite competent to do so for himself. After Karzai was caught blatantly stealing a million votes, forcing a run-off which was cancelled because the opposition withdrew when the USA insisted that the same corrupt incompetents were to be left managing it as had helped with the vote theft the first time around, even if that government is consistent with American values it is not representative of anything in Afghanistan aside from their conqueror's need to have a puppet government in place. Afghans know this. So does everyone else in the rest of the World that has been paying attention, including the populations of the USA's kleptocratic friends across the Middle East and Central Asia. Which is no doubt creating more friends and allies and the willingness to fund them. ]
Yet huge challenges remain: Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years, it has moved backwards. [ Hermit : How many years of "backwards" movement will it take to be "lost"? How will Obama determine that it is lost? ]
There's no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. [ Hermit : The American puppet government in Kabul? The area and economic activity controlled by them, even with NATO, total air dominance and 200,000 to 300,000 mercenaries is far smaller, and their hold more tenuous than at any time when the Soviets, who held much freer and better supported elections, ran Afghanistan. And we all know how that saga ended. How does Obama, with supply lines stretching halfway around the planet, imagine he is going to obtain a better outcome? Magic? ]
Al-Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border. [ Hermit : US Intelligence estimates there are fewer than 100 al Q'aeda effectives in Afghanistan. How is adding another 30,000 to 40,000 troops in Afghanistan going to affect these al Qaeda forces ability to "overthrow the government", ensure Afghanistan is "lost" and reemerge in Afghanistan? No, it doesn't make any sense examined like this, and that is because it doesn't make any sort of sense at all. As Raimondo said, "Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe-havens along the border." So we’re in Afghanistan in order to fight an enemy that’s in Pakistan?" Sounds ludicrous when you put it that way, doesn't it? It is ludicrous in the physical world no matter how it is described.]
And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population. [ Hermit : And 34,000 more American soldiers is going to achieve this how? What is the mission profile change that will make the current soldiers effective when the 50-60,000 already committed haven't done so in 8 years? ]
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. [Hermit : Many people predicted this in 2001 and pointed to the deterioting situation as it occurred. The problem isn't the army or resources but the impossible mission. Escalating an unsustainable situation does not make it sustainable. Rather the reverse. ] [/i]
As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you have fought in Afghanistan. Some of you will deploy there. As your commander-in-chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined and worthy of your service. [ i] [ Hermit : And waht is not said, deploying there, large numbers will return in coffins, and even greater numbers will return requiring medical services that will be less and less dependable as the USA declines and fails. ][/i]
And that's why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy.
Now, let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war during this review period. Instead, the review has allowed me to ask the hard questions and to explore all the different options, along with my national security team, our military, and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and our key partners.
And given the stakes involved, I owed the American people and our troops no less.
[ Hermit : Trumpet peals. ]
[ Hermit : A 21 gun salute. More trumpet peals. ]
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. [ Hermit : Why? Obama acknowledges that the situation is not sustainable, that the war is spreading and given the ratio of support staff to troops, knowing that 30,000 troops will require another 300,000 support staff - and will cost the failing US economy $1 million each and $3 billion or more per month. So what makes sacrificing these troops and our borrowed money in our national interest. In all the above smoke and mirrors, Obama forgot to say. ] [/i]
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. [ Hermit : How are they going to come home? Escalation without clear goals only leads to further escalation. What are the goals in Afghanistan? How are these goals to be met. How are the additional troops going to achieve those goals. What is going to prevent the goals from unravelling when these necessary resources are no longer available? If these questions could be answered there might be some hope that there was a plan, even a sketch plan in crayons on the back of a serviette, somewhere in play. But there isn't. ]
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. [ Hermit : We know Afghanistan is a futile waste of no strategic significance except in some American strategists dreams as a potential oil pipeline in Russia's back-yard. So the long term actions being considered are elections in the USA. Not a good reason to commit soldiers to war and civilians to disaster, even though that never bothered Bush. ]
We have been at war now for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home. [ Hermit : The depression has started, not ended. Watch the unemployment figures. Obama lists these challenges, but fails to mention how committing more troops to this disaster will improve any of the issues he lists. ]
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. [ Hermit : On a point of order, it ought to be clear to any fool that the victims of American wars of aggression are bearing the heaviest burdens as we tend to inflict casualties at almost Israeli rates of around 100:1. ]
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've visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I've traveled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. [ Hermit : Which is more than Bush ever did. But judging on the stirring performance above, Obama is now engaged in martial mind games and visualises himself as the conquering hero. What a pity. ]
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. [ Hermit : This is easily proved to be unmitigated crap. The US has many enemies at home and abroad because of the way it has behaved in the past including its wars of aggression against the people of the Middle East. There is no military solution to that, as engaging in more of the same is not going to change the situation. Only changing the behaviour will improve the "security and safety of the American people", particularly as we cannot afford our current $1.5 trillion annual military expenditures before replacement of equipment being used up and hope to address the issues of energy dependence, infrastructural collapse, environmental disaster and financial suicide. Which pose far greater threats to all AMericans than anything happening in Afghanistan. ]
So, no, I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al-Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. [ Hermit : Repeating a lie does not make it true. It may be true that Pakistan and Afghanistan are currently the epicenter of violent extremism, we made it that way after all. Pakistan's Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto told President George Bush, "You are creating a Frankenstein" when we encouraged the development of extreme forms of Islam to motivate "the fight against communism" in Afghanistan. Now Frankenstein has come home. Religion being the glue that it is, it has spread its tentacles into the West. So we now have three major classes of opponents which Obama is treating as one. For starters, while we occupy their countries, we will attract the loving attention of guerillas who will do what they can, how they can, to hurt us in the same way as we are hurting their countries and their people. When we withdraw, all that will be left will be people wanting to change our policies. Some for religious reasons perhaps, but they will be in the minority to those wishing to change our policies for social reasons. Meaning that we need to recognise that our policies have injured us in the past and will if persisted with, injure us in the future, and change them. We have to recognize that attacks can be planned anywhere, and that the 9/11 attacks were not plotted in Afghanistan, and that even if we killed everyone living in Afghanistan and Pakistan - which might well be easier than attempting to control them - that attacks could and would be plotted against us in other places as dangerous as Hamburg, Kuala Lumpur, Washington, Chicago, Atlanta and even Los Angeles. We can't declare war on these places, and declaring war on them wouldn't reduce the degree of danger facing us. ]
This is no idle danger, no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards and al-Qaeda can operate with impunity. [ Hermit : This can only be a reference to the strange case of Najibullah Zazi, a legal resident of the US since 1999, long before 9/11, long before the illegal American invasion, and about which a vast number of questions remain, including motivation, that may only ever be exposed in court. Unfortunately, the Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, seems reluctant to allow the justice system to investigate allegations like these. One can only wonder why. Especially if the other arguments for his illegal war are such broken reeds that the administration feels it must attempt to build a case for war on such a feeble case. ]
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. [ Hermit : And pouring soldiers and materiel into the region, resulting in ever rising death tolls, increases the "stability and capacity" of "our partners" how? Who are these partners and are they really people we wish to call partners? Karzai, the mayor of Kabul? The military in Pakistan? Or the sort-of-elected government ruling some patches of the country we have destabilised with permission of the army. How about the murderers in Jerusalem. Or the brutal rulers of the Central Asian Republics? The corrupt royal houses of Arabia? A little more specificity would be helpful. ]
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. [ Hermit : Another ploy directly out of the Bush war justifications. Do I really need to comment on it? Presumably Obama hopes that the mushroom clouds of Pakistan will stampede Americans as thoroughly as the mushroom clouds of Iraq did for Cheney and Bush. Are all Americans really so stupid that their demagogues can drive them so easily to war? Time will tell. ]
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. [ These troops are not supposed to be going to Pakistan. Or are they? How about Iran? So to talk of al Q'aeda in Pakistan is specious. Now if it took 50,000 to 60,000 troops eight years to reduce the number of al Q'aeda in Afghanistan to "fewer than 100" what can we expect this latest group to achieve and how fast? Obama said above they would be returning in 2011, but how many of al Q'aeda can be left when they come home? And if only a few more of al-Q'aeda are killed, how is it going to change the outcome in Afghanistan, and how necessary is the current surge? ]
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. [ Hermit : Oh yes? ]
We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months.
The 30,000 additional troops that I'm announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010, the fastest possible pace, so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They'll increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.
Because this is an international effort, I've asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we're confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead.
Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. And now we must come together to end this war successfully. For what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility; what's at stake is the security of our allies and the common security of the world.
Now, taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground.
We'll continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government -- and, more importantly, to the Afghan people -- that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.
Second, we will work with our partners, the United Nations, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy so that the government can take advantage of improved security. This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over.
President Karzai's inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance.
We'll support Afghan ministries, governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas such as agriculture that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.
Now, the people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They've been confronted with occupation by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al-Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes.
So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand: America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect, to isolate those who destroy, to strengthen those who build, to hasten the day when our troops will leave, and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner and never your patron.
Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan. We're in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. And that's why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.
In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who've argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence.
But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan, and there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.
In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. And those days are over.
Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan's capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear.
America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan's democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistan people must know: America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan's security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.
These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.
And I recognize there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the more prominent arguments that I've heard and which I take very seriously.
First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized and we're better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. I believe this argument depends on a false reading of history.
Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border.
To abandon this area now and to rely only on efforts against al-Qaeda from a distance would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al-Qaeda and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.
Second, there are those who acknowledge that we can't leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we already have, but this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan security forces and give them the space to take over.
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 can be achieved 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, or our interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I don't have the luxury of committing to just one.
Indeed, I'm mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who, in discussing our national security, said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs."
Over the past several years, we have lost that balance. We failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our neighbors and friends are out of work and struggle to pay the bills. Too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children.
Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce, so we can't simply afford to ignore the price of these wars.
All told, by the time I took office, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. And going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year, and I'll work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.
But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military; it underwrites our diplomacy; it taps the potential of our people and allows investment in new industry; and it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last.
That's why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open- ended: because the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own.
Now, let me be clear. None of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions, failed states, diffuse enemies.
So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict, not just how we wage wars. We'll have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where Al Qaida and its allies attempt to establish a foothold -- whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere -- they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.
And we can't count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we can't capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks.
We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. And that's why I've made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and to pursue the goal of a world without them, because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever more destructive weapons. True security will come for those who reject them.
We'll have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I've spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim world, one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.
And, finally, we must draw on the strength of our values, for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That's why we must promote our values by living them at home, which is why I've 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 for the light of freedom and justice and opportunity and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are; that is the source, the moral source of America's authority.
Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents and great-grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions -- from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank -- that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.
We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades, a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, and markets open, and billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress, and advancing frontiers of human liberty.
For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation's resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours.
What we have fought for, what we continue to fight for is a better future for our children and grandchildren. And we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.
As a country, we're not as young -- and perhaps not as innocent -- as we were when Roosevelt was president. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. And now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age.
In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people, from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth.
This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue, nor should we. But I also know that we as a country cannot sustain our leadership nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.
It's easy to forget that, when this war began, we were united, bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. I believe...
I believe with every fiber of my being that we, as Americans, can still come together behind a common purpose, for our values are not simply words written into parchment. They are a creed that calls us together and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, as one people.
America, we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes.
Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.
Thank you very much.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Mermaid
Archon
Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.45
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!
|
|
Re:Afghanistan: And the wheels kept falling off in all directions
« Reply #28 on: 2009-12-03 18:08:35 » |
|
it is worth remembering at this point in time during this 'surge' that nobody..not a single person...from genghis khan to the russians...for hundreds of years now...has been able to fuck with afghanistan. point worth remembering. you cant win a 'war' there.
no way.
not happening.
cut your losses.
run.
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:Afghanistan: And the wheels kept falling off in all directions
« Reply #29 on: 2009-12-06 05:35:09 » |
|
"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."
[Blunderov] Marred? How about completely invalidated? But Obama neglects to mention that the "election" also produced a government that is apparently consistent with the USA's laws and constitution too.
www.theonion
Karzai Vows To Crack Down On Self
December 2, 2009 | Issue 45•49
KABUL, AFGHANISTAN—In his first major policy speech since being sworn in for a second term, Afghan president Hamid Karzai made a solemn pledge Wednesday to combat the rampant corruption of Afghan president Hamid Karzai. "Let me be clear: I will not rest until I bring an end to my graft and backroom deal-making," said Karzai, later adding that he will personally head up an investigation into allegations that he authorized massive voter fraud in order to secure his own victory in August's presidential election. "The blind eye that I continue to turn to drug trafficking, embezzlement, and human rights violations will no longer be tolerated, and I will do everything in my power to finally bring myself to justice." Karzai also announced the appointment of several relatives to a new commission that will tackle the problem of nepotism within his administration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
