Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our armed services, and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan - the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my Administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It is an honor for me to do so here - at West Point - where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.
To address these issues, it is important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, nineteen men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of the passengers on board one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.
As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda - a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world's great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda's base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban - a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.
Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them - an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 0. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 - the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda's terrorist network, and to protect our common security. Story continues below advertisement
Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy - and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden - we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the UN, a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.
Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq War is well-known and need not be repeated here. It is enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq War drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention - and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.
Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of our men and women in uniform. Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance , we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.
But while we have achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda's leadership established a safe-haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it has been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient Security Forces. Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to take control over swaths of Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating acts of terrorism against the Pakistani people.
Throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. That's why, shortly after taking office, I approved a long-standing request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan, and the extremist safe-havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian effort.
Since then, we have made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we have stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda world-wide. In Pakistan, that nation's Army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and - although it was marred by fraud - that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan's laws and Constitution.
Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There is no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe-havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan Security Forces and better secure the population. Our new Commander in Afghanistan - General McChrystal - has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: the status quo is not sustainable.
As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you have fought in Afghanistan. Many will deploy there. As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. That is why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Let me be clear: there has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war. Instead, the review has allowed me ask the hard questions, and to explore all of the different options along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and with our key partners. Given the stakes involved, I owed the American people - and our troops - no less.
This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.
I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.
Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you - a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens. As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I have visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I have travelled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.
So no - I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. This danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.
Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America's war. Since 9/11, al Qaeda's safe-havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.
These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.
To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe-haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's Security Forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future.
We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months.
The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 - the fastest pace possible - so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They will increase our ability to train competent Afghan Security Forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.
Because this is an international effort, I have asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we are confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility - what's at stake is the security of our Allies, and the common security of the world.
Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's Security Forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government - and, more importantly, to the Afghan people - that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.
Second, we will work with our partners, the UN, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.
This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai's inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We will support Afghan Ministries, Governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas - such as agriculture - that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.
The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They have been confronted with occupation - by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand - America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect - to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.
Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.
We are in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That is why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.
In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who have argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani Army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.
In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan's capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe-haven for terrorists whose location is known, and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan's democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistani people must know: America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan's security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.
These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.
I recognize that there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the prominent arguments that I have heard, and which I take very seriously.
First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we are better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. Yet this argument depends upon a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now - and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance - would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.
Second, there are those who acknowledge that we cannot leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan Security Forces and give them the space to take over.
Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a timeframe for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort - one that would commit us to a nation building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what we can achieve at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a timeframe for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.
As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, our or interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I do not have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I am mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who - in discussing our national security - said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs."
Over the past several years, we have lost that balance, and failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our friends and neighbors are out of work and struggle to pay the bills, and too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we simply cannot afford to ignore the price of these wars.
All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly 30 billion dollars for the military this year, and I will work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.
But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That is why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended - because the nation that I am most interested in building is our own.
Let me be clear: none of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions and diffuse enemies.
So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict. We will have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold - whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere - they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.
And we cannot count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we cannot capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks.
We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. That is why I have made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to pursue the goal of a world without them. Because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever-more destructive weapons - true security will come for those who reject them.
We will have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I have spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim World - one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.
Finally, we must draw on the strength of our values - for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That is why we must promote our values by living them at home - which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom, and justice, and opportunity, and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the moral source of America's authority.
Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions - from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank - that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.
We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades - a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, markets open, billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress, and advancing frontiers of human liberty.
For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation's resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for - and what we continue to fight for - is a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.
As a country, we are not as young - and perhaps not as innocent - as we were when Roosevelt was President. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. Now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age.
In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people - from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth.
This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue - nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.
It is easy to forget that when this war began, we were united - bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. I believe with every fiber of my being that we - as Americans - can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment - they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, one people.
America - we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes. Thank you, God Bless you, God Bless our troops, and may God Bless the United States of America
.
I just watched the speech on TV and even cut my StarCraft practice to watch this and I must say, Obama's rhetoric never fails to impress me but his ultimate message is "Relax America, the government will take care of everything." In World War II, everyone sacrificed towards the war effort.
Nowadays, when you come to America, you'd have to have someone tell you that our nation is in a war. Also, to strengthen my argument that the US government would not be able to take care of Afghanistan by themselves, Obama has to remember that we are in a very severe economic recession and the war over the year has cost the American economy over 1 trillion dollars. Also, if Obama's health care plan gets passed, he will have to spend even more money to create the new system. So after this small rant, I conclude that Obama has to ask the American people to sacrifice some of their life to help America's future or have the next generation pay for our troubles.
EDIT- After some more thought, I wondered if Obama did not take those actions I wished him to because the American people do not higher taxes as stated during the 2008 election. Plus, in my area, the people do not like being told what to do by the government, especially if it is ran by a Democrat.
I think that the backing of this war isn't unanimous like in World War II. Unlike in WWII, where a foreign government ordered an attack on the US, a single man organized an attack. After invading Afghanistan, then Iraq (wtf?) and failing to find the original antagonist, many people wonder why the USA invaded in the first place. Consequently, since many people do not approve of the war, they would be unwilling to sacrifice anything for it.
On December 02 2009 11:15 Triple7 wrote: I think that the backing of this war isn't unanimous like in World War II. Unlike in WWII, where a foreign government ordered an attack on the US, a single man organized an attack. After invading Afghanistan, then Iraq (wtf?) and failing to find the original antagonist, many people wonder why the USA invaded in the first place. Consequently, since many people do not approve of the war, they would be unwilling to sacrifice anything for it.
Well I forgot to mention WWI where America was not attacked at all and there was the same fear of being invaded. Back in the beginning of the war, everyone was hyped about Afghanistan and Iraq about it and now, people say otherwise. As for WWI, people did have increased taxes and many people created the famous victory gardens. You really never saw that during the early years of Iraq and Afghanistan.
this speech was such fucking garbage. He basically repeated himself over and over and what he was saying was vague open ended bullshit. I bet if you broke it down point by point and compared it to a bush speech you couldn't tell the difference. Even more ridiculous was the after speech news interpretations where the news people were like "he wasnt just slogan throwing .. bleh bleh" . Oh yea right, like quoting old terrible presidents and repeating the same 'America stands for justice and liberty' crap isn't slogan?
btw, pretty much everything he was saying was contradictory and lies.
The main point in the whole terrible address was this: send 30k troops to pakistan and then leave asap. Does that make fucking sense at all? no.
PS- I also loved the affirmitive action/propaganda of singling out every minority group in the audience for long periods of time. (finding the only asian chick, etc)
Did anyone else get the feeling there was an 'applause' sign at points , as well?
And then we had Obama's tough/serious face which was laughable and forced. this guy is a fucking joke.
Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our armed services, and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan - the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my Administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It is an honor for me to do so here - at West Point - where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.
To address these issues, it is important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, nineteen men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of the passengers on board one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.
As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda - a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world's great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda's base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban - a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.
Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them - an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 0. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 - the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda's terrorist network, and to protect our common security. Story continues below advertisement
Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy - and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden - we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the UN, a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.
Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq War is well-known and need not be repeated here. It is enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq War drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention - and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.
Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of our men and women in uniform. Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance , we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.
But while we have achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda's leadership established a safe-haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it has been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient Security Forces. Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to take control over swaths of Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating acts of terrorism against the Pakistani people.
Throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. That's why, shortly after taking office, I approved a long-standing request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan, and the extremist safe-havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian effort.
Since then, we have made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we have stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda world-wide. In Pakistan, that nation's Army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and - although it was marred by fraud - that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan's laws and Constitution.
Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There is no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe-havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan Security Forces and better secure the population. Our new Commander in Afghanistan - General McChrystal - has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: the status quo is not sustainable.
As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you have fought in Afghanistan. Many will deploy there. As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. That is why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Let me be clear: there has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war. Instead, the review has allowed me ask the hard questions, and to explore all of the different options along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and with our key partners. Given the stakes involved, I owed the American people - and our troops - no less.
This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.
I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.
Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you - a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens. As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I have visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I have travelled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.
So no - I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. This danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.
Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America's war. Since 9/11, al Qaeda's safe-havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.
These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.
To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe-haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's Security Forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future.
We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months.
The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 - the fastest pace possible - so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They will increase our ability to train competent Afghan Security Forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.
Because this is an international effort, I have asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we are confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility - what's at stake is the security of our Allies, and the common security of the world.
Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's Security Forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government - and, more importantly, to the Afghan people - that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.
Second, we will work with our partners, the UN, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.
This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai's inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We will support Afghan Ministries, Governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas - such as agriculture - that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.
The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They have been confronted with occupation - by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand - America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect - to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.
Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.
We are in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That is why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.
In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who have argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani Army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.
In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan's capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe-haven for terrorists whose location is known, and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan's democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistani people must know: America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan's security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.
These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.
I recognize that there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the prominent arguments that I have heard, and which I take very seriously.
First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we are better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. Yet this argument depends upon a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now - and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance - would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.
Second, there are those who acknowledge that we cannot leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan Security Forces and give them the space to take over.
Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a timeframe for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort - one that would commit us to a nation building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what we can achieve at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a timeframe for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.
As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, our or interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I do not have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I am mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who - in discussing our national security - said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs."
Over the past several years, we have lost that balance, and failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our friends and neighbors are out of work and struggle to pay the bills, and too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we simply cannot afford to ignore the price of these wars.
All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly 30 billion dollars for the military this year, and I will work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.
But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That is why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended - because the nation that I am most interested in building is our own.
Let me be clear: none of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions and diffuse enemies.
So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict. We will have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold - whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere - they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.
And we cannot count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we cannot capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks.
We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. That is why I have made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to pursue the goal of a world without them. Because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever-more destructive weapons - true security will come for those who reject them.
We will have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I have spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim World - one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.
Finally, we must draw on the strength of our values - for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That is why we must promote our values by living them at home - which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom, and justice, and opportunity, and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the moral source of America's authority.
Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions - from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank - that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.
We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades - a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, markets open, billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress, and advancing frontiers of human liberty.
For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation's resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for - and what we continue to fight for - is a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.
As a country, we are not as young - and perhaps not as innocent - as we were when Roosevelt was President. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. Now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age.
In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people - from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth.
This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue - nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.
It is easy to forget that when this war began, we were united - bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. I believe with every fiber of my being that we - as Americans - can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment - they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, one people.
America - we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes. Thank you, God Bless you, God Bless our troops, and may God Bless the United States of America.
What bugged me is that Obama stated that unlike Vietnam, we have a major coalition but if we send 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan, over 70% of the troops will be American making it another American war like in Iraq.
On December 02 2009 11:22 Mori600 wrote: What bugged me is that Obama stated that unlike Vietnam, we have a major coalition but if we send 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan, over 70% of the troops will be American making it another American war like in Iraq.
he was saying all kinds of retarded contradictions. He first said iraq was a disaster and then like a minute later he says we should go into pakistan and do like we did in iraq. Wtf? Then later he said it's like another vietnam, which we fucking lost. Wtf?
I love how people still defend this guy. Suddenly all of the pro-Obama people are suddenly pro-war. "We're not pro war, we just know that Obama's doing his best and Bush fucked us over, and so, well, I guess it's okay to send more people to their deaths, and piss away billions of more dollars on an endless, fruitless, hopeless war we've locked ourselves into..."
On December 02 2009 11:19 liosama wrote: Has there every been a US president who isn't a war brandishing fuckwit? Fuck them all.
Americans actually believe that they are invincible and can never lose a war. I think withdrawing from Afghanistan would be an admission of failure that not only could the United States government not recover from, but that the people and their spirit couldn't.
On December 02 2009 11:24 MountainDewJunkie wrote: I love how people still defend this guy. Suddenly all of the pro-Obama people are suddenly pro-war. "We're not pro war, we just know that Obama's doing his best and Bush fucked us over, and so, well, I guess it's okay to send more people to their deaths, and piss away billions of more dollars on an endless, fruitless, hopeless war we've locked ourselves into..."
I am not defending Obama but history is repeating itself. Whenever a President comes into office, he is often treated as the Messiah then they realize that he is not as awesome people thought he was. Really makes me think about a lyric to a song I heard, "Say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss."
On December 02 2009 11:19 liosama wrote: Has there every been a US president who isn't a war brandishing fuckwit? Fuck them all.
Americans actually believe that they are invincible and can never lose a war. I think withdrawing from Afghanistan would be an admission of failure that not only could the United States government not recover from, but that the people and their spirit couldn't.
What has croatia ever done for anyone? Ok your opinion doesnt count
On December 02 2009 11:24 MountainDewJunkie wrote: I love how people still defend this guy. Suddenly all of the pro-Obama people are suddenly pro-war. "We're not pro war, we just know that Obama's doing his best and Bush fucked us over, and so, well, I guess it's okay to send more people to their deaths, and piss away billions of more dollars on an endless, fruitless, hopeless war we've locked ourselves into..."
Obama campaigned on war and continuing/moving the war to the place it was supposed to be: Afghanistan. He said he would fight terrorism, but he would do it on a stopwatch, and hey, he just confirmed that. So, no: "Suddenly all the pro-Obama people are suddenly pro-war" is not at all true, its just you freely admitting that you don't pay attention to anything but what you watch on cable news/daily show.
If you paid attention to what the man said, this is not a surprise.
I voted for Obama and I'm not wild about what I got in alot of ways, but the war in Afghanistan is something I did vote for, and he IS delivering.
On December 02 2009 11:19 liosama wrote: Has there every been a US president who isn't a war brandishing fuckwit? Fuck them all.
Has there ever been a politician who is a decent, honest human being?
I haven't seen one in the time that I've been alive. Why do politicians run the world? It's ridiculous.
the problem isn't politicians specifically. Contrary to popular optimistic beliefs, people are inherently selfish and bad. They try to be good based on values they learn from their culture and society. But be honest with yourself, you know you and most people would definitely favor helping a friend out as opposed to 2 strangers.
The problem lies in the system. Which was fucking fixed and made to handle this terrible human nature when the constitution was written. But ever since the later 1800s and early 1900s the checks and balances have been compromised by shit like the federal reserve/world bank and wall street. So instead of politicians doing the job they should be doing, they have investments and friends in these other economy businesses that directly effect each other.
So corruption is fucking rampant and it's not really any one person's fault imho. It's just the nature of people. They are looking out for themselves and their family. No one gives a shit about the guy down the street.
On December 02 2009 11:19 liosama wrote: Has there every been a US president who isn't a war brandishing fuckwit? Fuck them all.
Has there ever been a politician who is a decent, honest human being?
I haven't seen one in the time that I've been alive. Why do politicians run the world? It's ridiculous.
Horrible people like that run the world because they're the only ones who desire that much power. Just like oil executives who make tens of billions of dollars and still try to make more, even though there is no way they could possibly ever spend all that money. These people just have a certain kind of desire for power that normal people don't, and it manifests itself in a certain personality every time.
On December 02 2009 11:19 liosama wrote: Has there every been a US president who isn't a war brandishing fuckwit? Fuck them all.
Has there ever been a politician who is a decent, honest human being?
I haven't seen one in the time that I've been alive. Why do politicians run the world? It's ridiculous.
Horrible people like that run the world because they're the only ones who desire that much power. Just like oil executives who make tens of billions of dollars and still try to make more, even though there is no way they could possibly ever spend all that money. These people just have a certain kind of desire for power that normal people don't, and it manifests itself in a certain personality every time.
You know, having money in the bank is often more useful than spending it on things, especially when it comes to women. The liquidity and safety that money offer far outweigh the individual material goods you can buy.
You know how easy it is to get a blowjob with $300 million in the bank?
vietnam wasnt a war (technically), and iraq is? we didn't ever declare war on vietnam. also, we are at war with north korea right now. to me vietnam was much more of a war than afghanistan, or iraq, but there are always technicalities. i would refer to these things as conflicts...
On December 02 2009 11:51 Bill Murray wrote: vietnam wasnt a war (technically), and iraq is? we didn't ever declare war on vietnam. also, we are at war with north korea right now. to me vietnam was much more of a war than afghanistan, or iraq, but there are always technicalities. i would refer to these things as conflicts...
Can you explain how we are at war with North Korea because I had always assumed you needed troops and a plan to attack or defend to be at war with a country.
On December 02 2009 11:19 liosama wrote: Has there every been a US president who isn't a war brandishing fuckwit? Fuck them all.
Has there ever been a politician who is a decent, honest human being?
I haven't seen one in the time that I've been alive. Why do politicians run the world? It's ridiculous.
Horrible people like that run the world because they're the only ones who desire that much power. Just like oil executives who make tens of billions of dollars and still try to make more, even though there is no way they could possibly ever spend all that money. These people just have a certain kind of desire for power that normal people don't, and it manifests itself in a certain personality every time.
You know, having money in the bank is often more useful than spending it on things, especially when it comes to women. The liquidity and safety that money offer far outweigh the individual material goods you can buy.
You know how easy it is to get a blowjob with $300 million in the bank?
This justifies killing millions and starting wars that destabilize entire global regions, amirite?
Anyone who thinks Obama is going back on his promises during the campaign wasn't paying attention during the debates. Obama repeatedly said that Bush made a mistake by focusing on Iraq at the expense of Afghanistan.
I think Obama believes that we can find the same wild success in Afghanistan that we've had in Iraq the past few years, but I don't think that's possible given the nature of the country. We need to win over the populace in Afghanistan to have any chance of winning, but I don't think that's possible given the fact that there's a civil war going on.
right, because we need to worry about some minor extremist groups (who probably can barely afford to drink clean water ) at the expense of our people,economy, and freedoms.
Terrorists don't take away my freedoms, governments do.
On December 02 2009 12:11 CharlieMurphy wrote: right, because we need to worry about some minor extremist groups (who probably can barely afford to drink clean water ) at the expense of our people,economy, and freedoms.
Terrorists don't take away my freedoms, governments do.
You are the least politically informed person on TL.
On December 02 2009 11:19 liosama wrote: Has there every been a US president who isn't a war brandishing fuckwit? Fuck them all.
Has there ever been a politician who is a decent, honest human being?
I haven't seen one in the time that I've been alive. Why do politicians run the world? It's ridiculous.
the problem isn't politicians specifically. Contrary to popular optimistic beliefs, people are inherently selfish and bad. They try to be good based on values they learn from their culture and society. But be honest with yourself, you know you and most people would definitely favor helping a friend out as opposed to 2 strangers.
The problem lies in the system. Which was fucking fixed and made to handle this terrible human nature when the constitution was written. But ever since the later 1800s and early 1900s the checks and balances have been compromised by shit like the federal reserve/world bank and wall street. So instead of politicians doing the job they should be doing, they have investments and friends in these other economy businesses that directly effect each other.
So corruption is fucking rampant and it's not really any one person's fault imho. It's just the nature of people. They are looking out for themselves and their family. No one gives a shit about the guy down the street.
This is just pure BS. I mean, lifeforms are by nature selfish, but I fail to see how that makes them 'bad'. The only time problems occur are when people lack perspective and become needlessly selfish to the point of harming others.
I mean, living in America I can understand why your kind of sentiment exists. A large part of the world is not like this, and actually feels some kind of common empathy for people - feels that they are part of a society that works. In America you have this prevailing notion that everyone is out to get you, and that you're unsafe even in your own home. It's because we don't ever stop to ask why something is occurring the way it is. We just hold our guns closer and closer, and only trust ourselves.
We don't ask why a person commits crimes in the first place, nor do we try to rehabilitate them. It's easier to say they're a 'bad person' and move on with it. This is why our prison systems (by far the largest in the world) are full of people who likely will be back in prison once again when they finally get out. And again, and again.
We also didn't stop to ask why 9/11 happened in the first place. No, even those of us who preach 'turning the other cheek' immediately called for revenge. Even those of us who proclaim to be liberals still maintain that finding and killing bin Laden was something that needed to be done - something that would end our problems. We make no effort to learn why this isn't the case.
In fact, we by and large refuse to even 'lower' ourselves to the point of trying to understand what goes through the minds of the people we hate. So we repeat the same cycle all over again. Unsurprisingly, we tend to find more and more 'bad' people every day.
On December 02 2009 11:19 liosama wrote: Has there every been a US president who isn't a war brandishing fuckwit? Fuck them all.
Has there ever been a politician who is a decent, honest human being?
I haven't seen one in the time that I've been alive. Why do politicians run the world? It's ridiculous.
Horrible people like that run the world because they're the only ones who desire that much power. Just like oil executives who make tens of billions of dollars and still try to make more, even though there is no way they could possibly ever spend all that money. These people just have a certain kind of desire for power that normal people don't, and it manifests itself in a certain personality every time.
You know, having money in the bank is often more useful than spending it on things, especially when it comes to women. The liquidity and safety that money offer far outweigh the individual material goods you can buy.
You know how easy it is to get a blowjob with $300 million in the bank?
This justifies killing millions and starting wars that destabilize entire global regions, amirite?
Why do you think you need to destroy things to get rich? Wealth comes to people based on desire, not based on appetite for destruction.
On December 02 2009 11:19 liosama wrote: Has there every been a US president who isn't a war brandishing fuckwit? Fuck them all.
I call trolling. John Adams, the 2nd President, to name one. Specifically in 1798.
yea andrew jackson ftw?
In 1835, Jackson managed to reduce the federal debt to only $33,733.05, the lowest it had been since the first fiscal year of 1791.[21] President Jackson is the only president in United States history to have paid off the national debt. However, this accomplishment was short lived. A severe depression from 1837 to 1844 caused a tenfold increase in national debt within its first year.[22]
Opposition to the National Bank Main article: Bank War Democratic cartoon shows Jackson fighting the monster Bank. "The Bank," Jackson told Martin Van Buren, "is trying to kill me, but I will kill it!"
The Second Bank of the United States was authorized for a twenty year period during James Madison's tenure in 1816. As President, Jackson worked to rescind the bank's federal charter. In Jackson's veto message (written by George Bancroft), the bank needed to be abolished because:
* It concentrated the nation's financial strength in a single institution. * It exposed the government to control by foreign interests. * It served mainly to make the rich richer. * It exercised too much control over members of Congress. * It favored northeastern states over southern and western states.
Following Jefferson, Jackson supported an "agricultural republic" and felt the Bank improved the fortunes of an "elite circle" of commercial and industrial entrepreneurs at the expense of farmers and laborers. After a titanic struggle, Jackson succeeded in destroying the Bank by vetoing its 1832 re-charter by Congress and by withdrawing U.S. funds in 1833. 1833 Democratic cartoon shows Jackson destroying the devil's Bank.
The bank's money-lending functions were taken over by the legions of local and state banks that sprang up. This fed an expansion of credit and speculation. At first, as Jackson withdrew money from the Bank to invest it in other banks, land sales, canal construction, cotton production, and manufacturing boomed.[28] However, due to the practice of banks issuing paper banknotes that were not backed by gold or silver reserves, there was soon rapid inflation and mounting state debts.[29] Then, in 1836, Jackson issued the Specie Circular, which required buyers of government lands to pay in "specie" (gold or silver coins). The result was a great demand for specie, which many banks did not have enough of to exchange for their notes. These banks collapsed.[28] This was a direct cause of the Panic of 1837, which threw the national economy into a deep depression. It took years for the economy to recover from the damage.
The U.S. Senate censured Jackson on March 28, 1834, for his action in removing U.S. funds from the Bank of the United States. When the Jacksonians had a majority in the Senate, the censure was expunged.
On December 02 2009 12:02 motbob wrote: Anyone who thinks Obama is going back on his promises during the campaign wasn't paying attention during the debates. Obama repeatedly said that Bush made a mistake by focusing on Iraq at the expense of Afghanistan.
I think Obama believes that we can find the same wild success in Afghanistan that we've had in Iraq the past few years.
Maybe im stupid and that was blatant sarcasm, cuz if not damn.. ...
On December 02 2009 12:11 CharlieMurphy wrote: right, because we need to worry about some minor extremist groups (who probably can barely afford to drink clean water ) at the expense of our people,economy, and freedoms.
Terrorists don't take away my freedoms, governments do.
You are the least politically informed person on TL.
On December 02 2009 11:19 liosama wrote: Has there every been a US president who isn't a war brandishing fuckwit? Fuck them all.
Has there ever been a politician who is a decent, honest human being?
I haven't seen one in the time that I've been alive. Why do politicians run the world? It's ridiculous.
Horrible people like that run the world because they're the only ones who desire that much power. Just like oil executives who make tens of billions of dollars and still try to make more, even though there is no way they could possibly ever spend all that money. These people just have a certain kind of desire for power that normal people don't, and it manifests itself in a certain personality every time.
You know, having money in the bank is often more useful than spending it on things, especially when it comes to women. The liquidity and safety that money offer far outweigh the individual material goods you can buy.
You know how easy it is to get a blowjob with $300 million in the bank?
This justifies killing millions and starting wars that destabilize entire global regions, amirite?
Why do you think you need to destroy things to get rich? Wealth comes to people based on desire, not based on appetite for destruction.
Wrong, fast wealth for a few comes from exploitation of the others, tell me, what is more profitable for EXXON, to pay irak a decent price for their oil, or to use tax payers money to obliterate the country and take their oil virtually for free?.
i'd give my 2 cents but not when the pessimistic, "zomg my country sucks and my entire corrupt government is bent on destroying us -- DONT LISTEN TO THE LIESSSS!!!" kind of people are online.
On December 02 2009 12:11 CharlieMurphy wrote: right, because we need to worry about some minor extremist groups (who probably can barely afford to drink clean water ) at the expense of our people,economy, and freedoms.
Terrorists don't take away my freedoms, governments do.
You are the least politically informed person on TL.
good argument bro.
I don't need to make one, if someone went and read your posts in this thread, they should be immediately able to write you off as a political deaf-mute. (provided they are not also a fool). By all means continue, its not as if you posting insane shit is news around here. Its not like one person calling you retarded will discourage you.
On December 02 2009 12:02 motbob wrote: Anyone who thinks Obama is going back on his promises during the campaign wasn't paying attention during the debates. Obama repeatedly said that Bush made a mistake by focusing on Iraq at the expense of Afghanistan.
I think Obama believes that we can find the same wild success in Afghanistan that we've had in Iraq the past few years.
Maybe im stupid and that was blatant sarcasm, cuz if not damn.. ...
There's a huge dropoff in U.S. casualties ever since Petraeus started getting his way with the surge. His strategy worked really well and we're doing a lot better in Iraq than we used to.
On December 02 2009 12:11 CharlieMurphy wrote: right, because we need to worry about some minor extremist groups (who probably can barely afford to drink clean water ) at the expense of our people,economy, and freedoms.
Terrorists don't take away my freedoms, governments do.
You are the least politically informed person on TL.
good argument bro.
I don't need to make one, if someone went and read your posts in this thread, they should be immediately able to write you off as a political deaf-mute. (provided they are not also a fool). By all means continue, its not as if you posting insane shit is news around here. Its not like one person calling you retarded will discourage you.
TBH, I think the whole Afghanistan war is being blown out of proportion. First of all, you are talking about troop counts, allies included, that are around 1/3 of the 'Iraq surge.' The cost is certainly not zero, but if the 'rule of thumb' conversion is still roughly a million USD per troop a year... war wise; it is relatively cheap to the American tax payer.
"I don't think you can fight a war on terror anymore then a war on jealousy" (Mahr) - about sums up my feelings on the war. If there really is a strategy to capture/kill those responsible for terrorist attacks AND snuff the western culture hate machine, then maybe it will work. Who knows... I do know that if Americans were subjected to another terrorist attack then all hell would break lose.
i just don't see why we cant pull out now. i still have no idea why we are there. i understand that we couldn't leave Iraq being as we said we'd rebuild its infrastructure.
that was nice and all, butnow that were pulling out of there, why do we have to help again? stopping terrorists sounds like a really petty reason.
bush did it, and if a guy like obama is choosing to expand the effort then there must be something going on that i dont know.
On December 02 2009 12:11 CharlieMurphy wrote: right, because we need to worry about some minor extremist groups (who probably can barely afford to drink clean water ) at the expense of our people,economy, and freedoms.
Terrorists don't take away my freedoms, governments do.
You are the least politically informed person on TL.
good argument bro.
I don't need to make one, if someone went and read your posts in this thread, they should be immediately able to write you off as a political deaf-mute. (provided they are not also a fool). By all means continue, its not as if you posting insane shit is news around here. Its not like one person calling you retarded will discourage you.
good argument bro.
As much as I'm inclined to agree with his sentiments you very much won this argument CM. I laughed. <3 Never change.
What was that one thing obama said in the speech that was completely vague and implies a never ending war? Oh yea, it was this mission objective: "..a civilian surge that reinforces positive action;.."
On December 02 2009 12:31 keV. wrote: TBH, I think the whole Afghanistan war is being blown out of proportion. First of all, you are talking about troop counts, allies included, that are around 1/3 of the 'Iraq surge.' The cost is certainly not zero, but if the 'rule of thumb' conversion is still roughly a million USD per troop a year... war wise; it is relatively cheap to the American tax payer.
"I don't think you can fight a war on terror anymore then a on jealousy" (Mahr) - about sums up my feelings on the war. If there really is a strategy to capture/kill those responsible for terrorist attacks AND snuff the western culture hate machine, then maybe it will work. Who knows... I do know that if Americans were subjected to another terrorist attack then all hell would break lose.
I think pulling out and leaving the situation as is will just develop even more scrutiny from the public, especially internationally. As a superpower America has to get the job done or we will lose face.
No one has the slightest idea what is going on in either country the media sends a message that could be totaly different from reality.
if the issue is what Obama said some years ago, then that cannot be a valid point. There has and there will never be a presidential canditate that when he becomes president that dose what promised and he said in his campain.
A very important point everyone dosent take into account is the fact that obama will have little to no resources to back anything he dose, 6 years of war in iraq have cost the american dollar too much. there is no way that the usa will get back to their blossoming economy anytime soon.
the importance of going to afganistan is that he is trying to do the right thing, he is trying to get Al qaeda. But for those who know that al qaeda is a non existant threat well we know that what obama is doing is pure politics.
He is in no way the same as bush.. stop comparing him based on promises not made.. every politician dose that its politics at work.
On December 02 2009 12:31 keV. wrote: TBH, I think the whole Afghanistan war is being blown out of proportion. First of all, you are talking about troop counts, allies included, that are around 1/3 of the 'Iraq surge.' The cost is certainly not zero, but if the 'rule of thumb' conversion is still roughly a million USD per troop a year... war wise; it is relatively cheap to the American tax payer.
"I don't think you can fight a war on terror anymore then a on jealousy" (Mahr) - about sums up my feelings on the war. If there really is a strategy to capture/kill those responsible for terrorist attacks AND snuff the western culture hate machine, then maybe it will work. Who knows... I do know that if Americans were subjected to another terrorist attack then all hell would break lose.
I think pulling out and leaving the situation as is will just develop even more scrutiny from the public, especially internationally. As a superpower America has to get the job done or we will lose face.
That is certainly true. Bush basically cost us our world wide street cred. Imagine if Osama was actually captured or killed, we'd have that swagger again...
On December 02 2009 12:41 HeadhunteR wrote: No one has the slightest idea what is going on in either country the media sends a message that could be totaly different from reality.
if the issue is what Obama said some years ago, then that cannot be a valid point. There has and there will never be a presidential canditate that when he becomes president that dose what promised and he said in his campain.
A very important point everyone dosent take into account is the fact that obama will have little to no resources to back anything he dose, 6 years of war in iraq have cost the american dollar too much. there is no way that the usa will get back to their blossoming economy anytime soon.
the importance of going to afganistan is that he is trying to do the right thing, he is trying to get Al qaeda. But for those who know that al qaeda is a non existant threat well we know that what obama is doing is pure politics.
He is in no way the same as bush.. stop comparing him based on promises not made.. every politician dose that its politics at work.
He's the same as bush. He's a nobody who reads speeches written for him to read.
On December 02 2009 12:41 HeadhunteR wrote: No one has the slightest idea what is going on in either country the media sends a message that could be totaly different from reality.
if the issue is what Obama said some years ago, then that cannot be a valid point. There has and there will never be a presidential canditate that when he becomes president that dose what promised and he said in his campain.
A very important point everyone dosent take into account is the fact that obama will have little to no resources to back anything he dose, 6 years of war in iraq have cost the american dollar too much. there is no way that the usa will get back to their blossoming economy anytime soon.
the importance of going to afganistan is that he is trying to do the right thing, he is trying to get Al qaeda. But for those who know that al qaeda is a non existant threat well we know that what obama is doing is pure politics.
He is in no way the same as bush.. stop comparing him based on promises not made.. every politician dose that its politics at work.
He's the same as bush. He's a nobody who reads speeches written for him to read.
Ahh, thank god - I was worried we wouldn't get a clairvoyant in this thread. Thanks.
Has there ever been a politician who is a decent, honest human being?
No, these traits are counterproductive in the pursuit of power. Also politicians have to deal with the corrupt upper class and corporations so if a politician is super nice and honest he won't be able to change anything.
On December 02 2009 12:31 keV. wrote: TBH, I think the whole Afghanistan war is being blown out of proportion. First of all, you are talking about troop counts, allies included, that are around 1/3 of the 'Iraq surge.' The cost is certainly not zero, but if the 'rule of thumb' conversion is still roughly a million USD per troop a year... war wise; it is relatively cheap to the American tax payer.
"I don't think you can fight a war on terror anymore then a on jealousy" (Mahr) - about sums up my feelings on the war. If there really is a strategy to capture/kill those responsible for terrorist attacks AND snuff the western culture hate machine, then maybe it will work. Who knows... I do know that if Americans were subjected to another terrorist attack then all hell would break lose.
I think pulling out and leaving the situation as is will just develop even more scrutiny from the public, especially internationally. As a superpower America has to get the job done or we will lose face.
That is certainly true. Bush basically cost us our world wide street cred. Imagine if Osama was actually captured or killed, we'd have that swagger again...
Not really...our street cred was already pretty poor from the long list of massive, massive screw ups. Vietnam, Operation Ajax (if you want, you can blame the British too), the Iran–Contra affair, providing Iraq with chemical weapons, and waging an absolutely silly war on people hiding in caves are just a few examples.
We've had so many political fuckups viewable from the moon that anti American sentiment, especially in countries like Iran, is hardly surprising and, at times, very understandable.
On December 02 2009 12:29 Disregard wrote: Everyone, blame the fat-cats! Corporations run the world, except maybe in some parts of Africa(Maybe Africa too but whatever).
On December 02 2009 12:31 keV. wrote: TBH, I think the whole Afghanistan war is being blown out of proportion. First of all, you are talking about troop counts, allies included, that are around 1/3 of the 'Iraq surge.' The cost is certainly not zero, but if the 'rule of thumb' conversion is still roughly a million USD per troop a year... war wise; it is relatively cheap to the American tax payer.
"I don't think you can fight a war on terror anymore then a on jealousy" (Mahr) - about sums up my feelings on the war. If there really is a strategy to capture/kill those responsible for terrorist attacks AND snuff the western culture hate machine, then maybe it will work. Who knows... I do know that if Americans were subjected to another terrorist attack then all hell would break lose.
I think pulling out and leaving the situation as is will just develop even more scrutiny from the public, especially internationally. As a superpower America has to get the job done or we will lose face.
That is certainly true. Bush basically cost us our world wide street cred. Imagine if Osama was actually captured or killed, we'd have that swagger again...
Not really...our street cred was pretty poor from the long list of massive, massive screw ups. Vietnam, Operation Ajax (if you want, you can blame the British too), the Iran–Contra affair, providing Iraq with chemical weapons, and waging an absolutely silly war on people hiding in caves are just a few examples. Seriously though, we've had so many political fuckups viewable from the moon that there is anti American sentiment all around the world, especially in countries like Iran.
Iraq was the first real blunder where the rest of the world really thought we were retarded. You had the blatant lie about weapons of mass destruction. Democracy had not failed on a global scale until Bush went into the WRONG country.
Even then, I don't think anti-americanism was at critical levels. The real turning point, I feel, is this recession. That was when the emperor truly had no clothes.
Afghanistan is a huge mess. Power struggles, civil wars, and a total lack of infrastructure. Throwing more troops at it seems unlikely to do much good.
I think what motbob said bears repeating: Obama didn't even pretend to be against the war in Afghanistan. In fact, he campaigned on it, mentioning it multiple times in the debates. Crying foul towards Obama only shows your political ignorance.
On December 02 2009 12:31 keV. wrote: TBH, I think the whole Afghanistan war is being blown out of proportion. First of all, you are talking about troop counts, allies included, that are around 1/3 of the 'Iraq surge.' The cost is certainly not zero, but if the 'rule of thumb' conversion is still roughly a million USD per troop a year... war wise; it is relatively cheap to the American tax payer.
"I don't think you can fight a war on terror anymore then a on jealousy" (Mahr) - about sums up my feelings on the war. If there really is a strategy to capture/kill those responsible for terrorist attacks AND snuff the western culture hate machine, then maybe it will work. Who knows... I do know that if Americans were subjected to another terrorist attack then all hell would break lose.
I think pulling out and leaving the situation as is will just develop even more scrutiny from the public, especially internationally. As a superpower America has to get the job done or we will lose face.
That is certainly true. Bush basically cost us our world wide street cred. Imagine if Osama was actually captured or killed, we'd have that swagger again...
Not really...our street cred was already pretty poor from the long list of massive, massive screw ups. Vietnam, Operation Ajax (if you want, you can blame the British too), the Iran–Contra affair, providing Iraq with chemical weapons, and waging an absolutely silly war on people hiding in caves are just a few examples.
We've had so many political fuckups viewable from the moon that anti American sentiment, especially in countries like Iran, is hardly surprising and, at times, very understandable.
I dont think we can compare this to Vietnam, that period was way different.
Has there ever been a politician who is a decent, honest human being?
No, these traits are counterproductive in the pursuit of power. Also politicians have to deal with the corrupt upper class and corporations so if a politician is super nice and honest he won't be able to change anything.
Yep, that's how it works. The traits that make a good politician - decisiveness, confidence, etc. - all make them terrible people. Apparently that's one of the reasons you find so many politicians cheating with le womens nowadays: cuz they have a mindset of "i am right." People who think and are open minded make bad politicians.
Afghanistan is a tough sell following the rigged elections there and the lack of a real reaction from the US. A surge / bigger effort needs some sort of credible and legitimate partner, and now I am not sure that partner exists on the Afghan side.
Speech sucked. He repeated himself over and over again and failed to bring any real compromise from either side of the political spectrum. What is he doing?
On December 02 2009 12:02 motbob wrote: Anyone who thinks Obama is going back on his promises during the campaign wasn't paying attention during the debates. Obama repeatedly said that Bush made a mistake by focusing on Iraq at the expense of Afghanistan.
I think Obama believes that we can find the same wild success in Afghanistan that we've had in Iraq the past few years.
Maybe im stupid and that was blatant sarcasm, cuz if not damn.. ...
There's a huge dropoff in U.S. casualties ever since Petraeus started getting his way with the surge. His strategy worked really well and we're doing a lot better in Iraq than we used to.
WILD SUCCESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
now go invade Afghanistan, those evil evil Muslim crazy terrorist extremist suicide rag headed baddies hate our freedom!!!
spread democracy around the world, look how you freed Iraq.
On December 02 2009 12:02 motbob wrote: Anyone who thinks Obama is going back on his promises during the campaign wasn't paying attention during the debates. Obama repeatedly said that Bush made a mistake by focusing on Iraq at the expense of Afghanistan.
I think Obama believes that we can find the same wild success in Afghanistan that we've had in Iraq the past few years.
Maybe im stupid and that was blatant sarcasm, cuz if not damn.. ...
There's a huge dropoff in U.S. casualties ever since Petraeus started getting his way with the surge. His strategy worked really well and we're doing a lot better in Iraq than we used to.
WILD SUCCESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'll take it. Iraq is pretty damn stable, which is something that no one really thought was possible before the surge started working. If U.S. troops get out and the country's still standing, maybe it'll all have been worth it.
On December 02 2009 12:02 motbob wrote: Anyone who thinks Obama is going back on his promises during the campaign wasn't paying attention during the debates. Obama repeatedly said that Bush made a mistake by focusing on Iraq at the expense of Afghanistan.
I think Obama believes that we can find the same wild success in Afghanistan that we've had in Iraq the past few years.
Maybe im stupid and that was blatant sarcasm, cuz if not damn.. ...
There's a huge dropoff in U.S. casualties ever since Petraeus started getting his way with the surge. His strategy worked really well and we're doing a lot better in Iraq than we used to.
WILD SUCCESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'll take it. Iraq is pretty damn stable, which is something that no one really thought was possible before the surge started working. If U.S. troops get out and the country's still standing, maybe it'll all have been worth it.
Correlation does not imply causation. The decreased troop deaths aren't necessarily a product of the surge. Remember that al-Sadr had already defeated the Sunnis by the time of the US Surge, so the surge hit a practically unified Baghdad. All the soldiers did was say "hey al-Sadr, tell your guys to lay down your arms kthx", and in March 2008, fighting stopped. No more sectarian violence all thanks to ethnic cleansing done before hand.
On December 02 2009 12:31 keV. wrote: TBH, I think the whole Afghanistan war is being blown out of proportion. First of all, you are talking about troop counts, allies included, that are around 1/3 of the 'Iraq surge.' The cost is certainly not zero, but if the 'rule of thumb' conversion is still roughly a million USD per troop a year... war wise; it is relatively cheap to the American tax payer.
"I don't think you can fight a war on terror anymore then a on jealousy" (Mahr) - about sums up my feelings on the war. If there really is a strategy to capture/kill those responsible for terrorist attacks AND snuff the western culture hate machine, then maybe it will work. Who knows... I do know that if Americans were subjected to another terrorist attack then all hell would break lose.
I think pulling out and leaving the situation as is will just develop even more scrutiny from the public, especially internationally. As a superpower America has to get the job done or we will lose face.
That is certainly true. Bush basically cost us our world wide street cred. Imagine if Osama was actually captured or killed, we'd have that swagger again...
Not really...our street cred was already pretty poor from the long list of massive, massive screw ups. Vietnam, Operation Ajax (if you want, you can blame the British too), the Iran–Contra affair, providing Iraq with chemical weapons, and waging an absolutely silly war on people hiding in caves are just a few examples.
We've had so many political fuckups viewable from the moon that anti American sentiment, especially in countries like Iran, is hardly surprising and, at times, very understandable.
I dont think we can compare this to Vietnam, that period was way different.
Plus the fact that we were cleaning up France's mess.
Has there ever been a politician who is a decent, honest human being?
No, these traits are counterproductive in the pursuit of power. Also politicians have to deal with the corrupt upper class and corporations so if a politician is super nice and honest he won't be able to change anything.
Yep, that's how it works. The traits that make a good politician - decisiveness, confidence, etc. - all make them terrible people. Apparently that's one of the reasons you find so many politicians cheating with le womens nowadays: cuz they have a mindset of "i am right." People who think and are open minded make bad politicians.
I'd be willing to bet that politicians cheat no more than regular people.
"The good news is we are going to speed up your surgery so that hopefully it will go fast"
"The bad news is that if there are complications, and we are not done by 2:00pm, we are going to leave your chest wide open and leave the OR, cause this isn't an open-ended committment on our part"
This is essentially what putting timelines for departures are. It puts a date as a higher priority than other possible goals such as success, or even just stability or anything else.
Apparently the war in Afghanistan is a "war of necessity" but winning or even achieving any other goal is not a necessity. Pretty weird to me.
Essentially what I think this was was a compromise trying to please everyone but going to please no on and has little chance of success. To please the moderates and keep his campaign promise, "We will send more troops". To please the Left that threatens him daily, "but we will put a timeline on and withdraw no matter what by this date".
It irks me that his focus is not on achieving anything. If you want to win then just plan for a win and don't bother with a "read the future" date. If you want to be out of Afghanistan, then just pull out. He seriously needs to grow some [add what you want here] and start acting like a man and take a stance and stick to it.
Before the presidential campaign people had seemingly forgot about Afghanistan. When we toppled the Taliban we never had an effective strategy to maintain control of the country, and never put in the proper resources to stabilize it. Iraq was a ridiculous side show, and through his campaign Obama started to refocus media attention on Afghanistan and its more direct role in terrorism and 9-11. So any notion that increased involvement in Afghanistan is somehow a surprise is extremely misinformed.
Putting more resources into Afghanistan has been on the agenda from the get-go, the question has been about how much resources, where the money would go, and what the people would be doing. Since the election the situation has been constantly changing, making those decisions harder to make. Pakistan has put increased pressure on the AfPak border, which is what we wanted, but has also incited more violence from the Pakistani taliban, whos regular attacks in Pakistan are destabilizing the country. Afghanistan had a national election which has been widely accepted as a complete fraud. Iraqi law has given military control to the Iraqi government, taking immense amount of media exposure off of Iraq, which despite what some people think, is still struggling (a strong insurgency still exists, and there are ongoing political battles with the Kurds that could potentially divide the country). Those changes have been coupled with Obama having to navigate strong political debate about the conflict, while managing a battered economy and trying to push through a massive health care bill (slight side bar, sorry). Point being, the delay about the Afghan decision isn't because he has "flip flopped" on some non-existent anti war stance, or that he is indecisive, it is because he has had to deal with changing realities in deciding between multiple bad options.
It is widely believed that the only 2 options for Afghanistan are to go all in or get the hell out. This logic assumes that the counter-terrorism strategy(having minimal presence in the country while chasing down terrorists with drones) will not work. Which seems to be reasonable because it is what we have done for 7 years, and we have gotten no where. Also, because our ability to chase down the terrorists relies on human information, which is hard to get when the local population does not trust you and that trust deteriorates with civilian casualties. The "all-in" strategy is a population centric counter-insurgency strategy that involves going into large populated areas and protecting the population so that they can begin functioning as a society without fear of the taliben, and they can begin trusting us. This was what we did with the "surge" in Iraq. The success of the surge has given a lot of credit to counter insurgency(COIN), and the people (advisers, military officers, politicians,etc...) that implemented the COIN strategy are the people pushing for that strategy to be applied to Afghanistan. Critics rightly point out that Iraq and Afghanistan are very different. Prior to our invasion, Iraq had advanced infrastructure in place, with effective national organization. Afghanistan is as "backwards" as countries come, and has had no real effective national government for over 30 years. Effectively applying a COIN strategy would technically (technically based on suggested troop to population ratios) require something like another 400,00-600,000 troops. Obviously, this number is no where in the national debate and isn't considered acceptable by anyone. So even our best shot at stabilizing Afghanistan (executing a COIN strategy effectively) is an option that is 1) not going to happen to its most effective degree,and 2) is still a fairly murky option.
The get out of dodge option means giving up on 8 years of war without any real progress, without meeting any objectives, without accomplishing our original goals. I don't think the national debate has the stomach for that. But more importantly, getting out of Afghanistan means that the already destabilized Pakistan will be at greater risk. Pakistan was one of the few governments to recognize the Taliban as a government, but mostly because they didn't want an India friendly country on their other border. Since the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Pakistan relationship with the Afghan Taliban has become ambiguous. At the same time that the Paki intelligence service is apparently giving information to the Afghan Taliban, they are fighting the Pakistan Taliban. 2 groups with a different base of leaders, but who work closely together in the FATA of Pakistan. Is the U.S. backed out of Afghanistan, the Taliban would be able to regain control of most of the country fairly quickly (whether or not they can run the country is a different matter). What effect would that have on the stability of Pakistan, a country sitting on nuclear weapons? If we let that happen, how would that impact our relationship with other allies? How could we effectively execute a COIN strategy in the future, if the population feels like we are just going to back out on them? How would that impact the Islamic extremist movement? Would it build momentum? Would that create a threat to us?
This was a very difficult decision for anyone to make. Personally, I don't know what decision I would have made, but I have enough respect for the people making the decisions to trust that it was the best decision given our options. Ultimately how successful this increase of troops is depends on what they do and how effectively they do it. Gaining and holding the Helmund and Kandahar province from the Taliban and effectively training the Afghan security force by 2011 seems like a tall task. I am not sure if another 30,000 troops is enough to make it happen. On the same token there was equal amounts of skepticism about the surge in Iraq. At this point we can only wait and hope for the best.
On December 02 2009 12:02 motbob wrote: Anyone who thinks Obama is going back on his promises during the campaign wasn't paying attention during the debates. Obama repeatedly said that Bush made a mistake by focusing on Iraq at the expense of Afghanistan.
I think Obama believes that we can find the same wild success in Afghanistan that we've had in Iraq the past few years.
Maybe im stupid and that was blatant sarcasm, cuz if not damn.. ...
There's a huge dropoff in U.S. casualties ever since Petraeus started getting his way with the surge. His strategy worked really well and we're doing a lot better in Iraq than we used to.
WILD SUCCESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'll take it. Iraq is pretty damn stable, which is something that no one really thought was possible before the surge started working. If U.S. troops get out and the country's still standing, maybe it'll all have been worth it.
For Exxon yes, it will be mighty fine.
For Iraq well, over 80% of the people say the security is worse today that it was pre-invation and over 92% of the people want USA to leave the country right now.
Please stop yelling incoherently. This clip is blatantly out of context. Which war is he talking about? Probably the one he voted against. :\
the one he promised to end as soon as he took office... the one he hasnt ended after 1 year of presidency and the one that still looks like it wont be over any soon.
On December 02 2009 12:02 motbob wrote: Anyone who thinks Obama is going back on his promises during the campaign wasn't paying attention during the debates. Obama repeatedly said that Bush made a mistake by focusing on Iraq at the expense of Afghanistan.
I think Obama believes that we can find the same wild success in Afghanistan that we've had in Iraq the past few years.
Maybe im stupid and that was blatant sarcasm, cuz if not damn.. ...
There's a huge dropoff in U.S. casualties ever since Petraeus started getting his way with the surge. His strategy worked really well and we're doing a lot better in Iraq than we used to.
WILD SUCCESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'll take it. Iraq is pretty damn stable, which is something that no one really thought was possible before the surge started working. If U.S. troops get out and the country's still standing, maybe it'll all have been worth it.
For Exxon yes, it will be mighty fine.
For Iraq well, over 80% of the people say the security is worse today that it was pre-invation and over 92% of the people want USA to leave the country right now.
Unfortunately the government, which the people elected democratically, don't want us to leave immediately. But I guess they're controlled by big oil, or something.
Going into a country cause of 1 guy. Making a huge mess out of the whole country (not that it was any good before). Leaving because it costs to much?
Is that what you guys want?
Sorry, this War has to be finished, not abandoned because you don't feel it necessary anymore. You went in there now deal with it and stop the crying, you should have cried before the war started.
On December 02 2009 16:53 Deviation wrote: What do you think would happen if fundamentalist Christians gained power in the US and had the power to crush any opposition?
The apocalypse, of course. They would rape every baby in the world and crucify all dissenters and reinstate slavery and fuck goats and puppies and the mentally infirm and plunge the universe into a second Dark Age. Duh.
Personally I fear fundamentalism slightly more than the political clout of transnational corporations and slightly less than secret cabals of Jews and the New World Order.
edit: or just read TeCh)PsylO a few posts up, especially the last paragraph.
1. As you grow older, you will more and more be at peace with the cynical regard required to keep emotional sanity in the contemporary world. This is to say, through historical experience one develops a complacent attitude towards the obvious viewpoint: "everything is fucked up", because it's really hard to be a genuine cheerleader in a world of recessions, global warming, sweatshops, nuclear proliferation, etc. At the same time, hopefully one comes to the realization that maintaining a pointed edge on that attitude is naive, and often counterproductive.
Ragging on politicians is something everyone goes through, I guess, but you're really missing the forest for the trees if you think the class of people, "politician", has an inherent moral or spiritual shortcoming or whathaveyou. Certainly the world is full of assholes, and the job description and game rules do tend to select for the ripest of the bunch. But unless you are crazy you will admit that many people elected to office started because they wanted to effect a positive change in their world, and they made the effort to get into office. Usually you have to kill picture perfect ideals in order to actually get anything done, and so it goes. Asking for anything else is wishful (perhaps not impossible) thinking. Condemning the personal compromise and sacrifice of direction that many "decent" polticians exhibit is unrealistic, and it's a sort of hypocrisy. Like it or not, politicians perform a service, which is to carry out the administration of a government. If you live in a democracy, you may actually have some opportunities to change the things you don't like, either through voting, or politicking yourself! A friend of mine has a saying. The people in charge are the ones who show up. If you could do a better job, and you really care about it that much, YOU SHOULD. The world has never been a pretty place, but I hope the reader agrees the overall trajectory of civilization has been progress. And, in fact, at no point previously has their been more traction for any given citizen wanting to change the course of history, given the class mobility, educational opportunity, potential to acquire capital, information prevalence, political freedom and regularly tilled institutional authority we may bask in, relative to 100 years, 200 years, 1000 years ago. I guess to sum up, words are cheap; complaining about "those people" is easy and skirts the issue. It's hard to paint precise lines around selfishness and selflessness, to put a rubric around what it means to live decently, to live a decent life. What do YOU want out of all this? And are you going about getting it done as best you can? Personally I lean towards less howling and more analysis.
2. You are the president. You are the president! Right now you are taking the opportunity to end your country's involvement in a war you never supported, and which is publicly all but condemned, but was nevertheless ongoing when you took office. So we're leaving Iraq. Now, you have this other war in Afghanistan... Your general, the guy who is actually running the show there, says he can win if he gets more troops. Let's assume you can trust what your general says. A lot of people at home want there to be no more troops there, though. And every other option in between being advised from all manner of astute observers who may or may not have vested interests™. Despite all that, there are some things to keep in mind, bigger picture: there are two up and coming powers in the region, India and China. We would like them to succeed in entering the first world smoothly and in our image, yes? (Peaceable (ha, i know), prosperous, free, democratic, socially progressive). One of them sort of has our financial balls, btw, though it's a bit of a two way street. Iran wants to have nukes. They are not loudmouthed, they have elements who genuinely would pull the trigger or hold that contingency ransom. Iran is kind of in the neighborhood of the up and comers. That whole neighborhood has been pretty dicey for a while now. What are we doing? Drowning in rising oceans? Running out of gasoline and plastic? Or unifying, going to Mars, raising the global standard of living, cool stuff like that? So what happens if we just split in Afghanistan. Pakistan has real troubles in that case, and they do have some nukes already, and they have been barely holding onto legitimate non-fascist government for a while. Next to Iran, who wants nukes, and is some weird fascist democratic hybrid. Who is next to Iraq, which is kind of in tatters and might go anarchy if you lean on the wall incorrectly, despite our best efforts and their recent measure of improvement. Who is next to some palestinians still angry with Israel and vice versa. Which is near Georgia where Russia is, among other places, having flashbacks of empire. There are lots of ways things get ugly if instability in Afghanistan spreads, or worse they have an outright enemy or outlaw government. Is some clusterfuck scenario guaranteed to happen? No, of course not. Would you like to gamble against any number of plausible bad scenarios? What's the price? You're the president. Your job, sort of first and foremost, is direct foreign policy, protect the U.S. How many troops will die. How much deficit will be incurred. Will you lose the support of the international community, in various arenas? Environmental pacts. Will you lose the support of factions at home? Health care. Economic reconstitution. Another term in office? How many troops will die.
This is to say, put yourself in those shoes. The president is not an idiot, I assume you aren't either. At meetings in the oval office, concerns about dwindling clout in the senate are omnipresent, but when you're deciding to recommit to a war, they are not as prominent as trying to grasp the long range implications of how the outcomes, and their chances of occurence, will affect the world and its future. There are enormous things at play. The points our asinine excuse for journalistic media keep reiterating, like what joe or jane house member thinks should happen, are not what's in the oval office. The veritable landscape of the global future, and our place in it, is in the oval office. Obama has selected the option that he believes is most profitable (I don't mean $), and I don't think more than 10% of that calculus had anything to do with day to day domestic politics. The presentation of that decision had everything to do with day to day politics, and I mean in an ongoing sense, not just this one speech. Don't confuse deep intentions with apparent actions.
Obama is following through on a campaign promise. Unfortunately, the corrupt government of Karzai and the recent election forgery makes it impossible to reach "stability." Obama is stuck justifying this losing idea of sending more troops just so they'll get pwned. We'll waste more money and people and the Afghan citizens will continue to suffer. It's an ugly mess and no matter what, everyone loses. The best thing to do is to choose to lose less and leave immediately.
At least there is a timetable for withdrawal, that is a step up. I agree that we should get out asap, but unlike most recent wars, at least this one has a known end.
On December 02 2009 12:31 keV. wrote: TBH, I think the whole Afghanistan war is being blown out of proportion. First of all, you are talking about troop counts, allies included, that are around 1/3 of the 'Iraq surge.' The cost is certainly not zero, but if the 'rule of thumb' conversion is still roughly a million USD per troop a year... war wise; it is relatively cheap to the American tax payer.
"I don't think you can fight a war on terror anymore then a on jealousy" (Mahr) - about sums up my feelings on the war. If there really is a strategy to capture/kill those responsible for terrorist attacks AND snuff the western culture hate machine, then maybe it will work. Who knows... I do know that if Americans were subjected to another terrorist attack then all hell would break lose.
I think pulling out and leaving the situation as is will just develop even more scrutiny from the public, especially internationally. As a superpower America has to get the job done or we will lose face.
That is certainly true. Bush basically cost us our world wide street cred. Imagine if Osama was actually captured or killed, we'd have that swagger again...
Not really...our street cred was already pretty poor from the long list of massive, massive screw ups. Vietnam, Operation Ajax (if you want, you can blame the British too), the Iran–Contra affair, providing Iraq with chemical weapons, and waging an absolutely silly war on people hiding in caves are just a few examples.
We've had so many political fuckups viewable from the moon that anti American sentiment, especially in countries like Iran, is hardly surprising and, at times, very understandable.
I dont think we can compare this to Vietnam, that period was way different.
Plus the fact that we were cleaning up France's mess.
Lol what ? France was gone in 1954. Johnson started the war and send troops in 1964. They had no obligation to do so. Actually that was a retarded Ev- move.
On December 02 2009 12:02 motbob wrote: Anyone who thinks Obama is going back on his promises during the campaign wasn't paying attention during the debates. Obama repeatedly said that Bush made a mistake by focusing on Iraq at the expense of Afghanistan.
I think Obama believes that we can find the same wild success in Afghanistan that we've had in Iraq the past few years.
Maybe im stupid and that was blatant sarcasm, cuz if not damn.. ...
There's a huge dropoff in U.S. casualties ever since Petraeus started getting his way with the surge. His strategy worked really well and we're doing a lot better in Iraq than we used to.
WILD SUCCESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'll take it. Iraq is pretty damn stable, which is something that no one really thought was possible before the surge started working. If U.S. troops get out and the country's still standing, maybe it'll all have been worth it.
For Exxon yes, it will be mighty fine.
For Iraq well, over 80% of the people say the security is worse today that it was pre-invation and over 92% of the people want USA to leave the country right now.
Unfortunately the government, which the people elected democratically, don't want us to leave immediately. But I guess they're controlled by big oil, or something.
yes because the fact that they were chosen democratically gives them right to do anything they want.
And no, obviously the government is controlled by multinational companies nor makes deals with them for common profit.
You win, i think i can have a more intellectual conversation with a dog... at least dogs know when they are being fucked in the ass.
Throughout the campaign, Obama talked about winding down the war in Iraq and ramping up the effort in Afghanistan. That's exactly what he's doing.
I didn't vote for him because I expected one outcome or another on this decision -- I don't have enough information to know for sure what the best decision was, and neither do any of you. What I voted for was a man who would consider the decision from every angle, and make his determination based on an intelligent, pragmatic analysis of the expected costs and benefits of each option. I didn't want someone who would decide one way or another based on ideology, jingoism, or even campaign promises. I wanted a thinker, and that's clearly what we got.
Nobody here knows what the right decision was. Since it took so long to come to a decision, it's obvious nobody in the government knows for SURE, either. But I'm impressed with Obama's decision-making process and I trust him to interpret the evidence before him as well as anyone could. If he thinks the evidence suggests we can improve our long-term security with this move, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt.
On December 02 2009 12:02 motbob wrote: Anyone who thinks Obama is going back on his promises during the campaign wasn't paying attention during the debates. Obama repeatedly said that Bush made a mistake by focusing on Iraq at the expense of Afghanistan.
I think Obama believes that we can find the same wild success in Afghanistan that we've had in Iraq the past few years.
Maybe im stupid and that was blatant sarcasm, cuz if not damn.. ...
There's a huge dropoff in U.S. casualties ever since Petraeus started getting his way with the surge. His strategy worked really well and we're doing a lot better in Iraq than we used to.
WILD SUCCESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'll take it. Iraq is pretty damn stable, which is something that no one really thought was possible before the surge started working. If U.S. troops get out and the country's still standing, maybe it'll all have been worth it.
For Exxon yes, it will be mighty fine.
For Iraq well, over 80% of the people say the security is worse today that it was pre-invation and over 92% of the people want USA to leave the country right now.
Unfortunately the government, which the people elected democratically, don't want us to leave immediately. But I guess they're controlled by big oil, or something.
yes because the fact that they were chosen democratically gives them right to do anything they want.
And no, obviously the government is controlled by multinational companies nor makes deals with them for common profit.
You win, i think i can have a more intellectual conversation with a dog... at least dogs know when they are being fucked in the ass.
You're right; a dog would be a bit closer to your intellectual level, after all.
Actually, being elected means that you have the right to govern as you see fit within the bounds of the constitution of your country. They can't exactly "do whatever they want," but they're well within their rights to request U.S. forces to stay.
I don't really get the second sentence... I think you messed up a correlative conjunction in there somewhere.
this liar has his hands all over dirty wall street money funded from the war imo
He is speaking about Iraq in that video and here is what he said about Iraq in his speech:
We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011.
Afghanistan is very different from Iraq and I don't reacall Obama ever promising to end the war in Afghanistan as soon as he took office. Most of the world supported the US when we went into Afghanistan
I don't know much about politics (a conscious effort on my part to stay ignorant), but I find the reasoning people use to bash Obama to be strange. I mean, the statement that all presidents are lying fuckwits. That can either be caused by a biased process which leads to the selection of lying fuckwits as presidents, or, it can be caused by the fact that these presidents take responsibility for making the hardest decisions in the world, and if any decision they make contradicts anything that they have ever implied, they get ripped apart for it.
For example, with the TSL, we spent hours discussing the Nongmin situation before making a decision. We give our final decision (which is absolutely pathetically unimportant compared to the decisions presidents make) and we get accused of everything from being biased to being dishonest to outright abusing the system. All the rules we've made in the past suddenly get thrown back into our faces, and every mod comment made in the last 2 weeks is scrutinized for evidence of bias. I can honestly tell you, we made the decision which we believed to be the best and most fair in the circumstances. What makes you think that a president is any different? What does Obama gain from being a lying fuckwit? He definitely doesn't get the adoration of the people, and I can't see how it makes him richer (unless he owns tons of oil shares or something). Much more likely than him lying is that there are incredible pressures on him from all sides, and he is simply making the best decisions he can in the situation.
Also, since when is everybody a political genius? If we ignore the fact that Obama is president, the man is pretty fucking intelligent. I mean, he got a Harvard law degree (without having a parent who's been a past president to help him get in) and he was the head of the president of the Harvard Law Review which even I know of, and I don't study law. To anyone who's ever applied for positions like these, you'll know that getting them means you are pretty fucking amazing and intelligent. So we have a person who is pretty fucking amazing, who has every bit of relevant intel in the world, and you're sitting on the sidelines shouting at how bad his decisions are. Your primary source of information is probably the internet, the tv, or a political analyst who has a reason to dislike the president. I'm not saying that Obama is making great decisions, in fact, I have no idea what decisions he is making, I just don't know how people can be as convinced as they are that his decisions are bad.
Just going to tell the people who are stereotyping against every American president calling them war-crazy and saying "fuck them" that they are historically uneducated to say such things.
Please read some more the presidents before you decide to generalize them all, or change your argument entirely.
Or better yet, just avoid speaking your mind if you're just going to flame in a derogatory manner.
We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011.
Afghanistan is very different from Iraq and I don't reacall Obama ever promising to end the war in Afghanistan as soon as he took office. Most of the world supported the US when we went into Afghanistan
don't you think that is a bit bait and switch of him ? He talks about ending war(s) as soon as he joins office. Doesn't do it right away, then says a year later "i'll do it within 18 months", meanwhile let's run more wars. "we need more troops"
Standard bullshit. Guaranteed more than half the people who voted for him didn't want this.
Standard bullshit. Guaranteed more than half the people who voted for him didn't want this.
LOL I followed his campaign pretty thoroughly (daily) and he promised to get out of Iraq. Not Afghanistan.
And I don't want to sound rude, but people who are disappointed I think deserve to be disappointed. So far he's doing a pretty good job, a very good job of "mopping" America back to shape. The job is far from complete and we have no idea how its going to look like in 3-4 years, but when people say they are "disappointed" in Obama; clearly, they were expecting him to ride the miracle Unicorn.
On December 02 2009 11:15 Triple7 wrote: I think that the backing of this war isn't unanimous like in World War II. Unlike in WWII, where a foreign government ordered an attack on the US, a single man organized an attack. After invading Afghanistan, then Iraq (wtf?) and failing to find the original antagonist, many people wonder why the USA invaded in the first place. Consequently, since many people do not approve of the war, they would be unwilling to sacrifice anything for it.
Call me crazy but I'd bet one of my legs that Bin Laden is dead and has been for a long time. I think the US government benefits from making people think he is still alive (yes he could be) but as long as people think he is still alive they are ok with the manhunt.
He was putting out a new video every week and then the bombing i think at tora bora (sp?) happened and all the sudden cat's got his tongue? I don't know.. .When someone runs their mouth as much as Bin Laden did and then all the sudden you only see old footage popping up it's a little suspicious to me.
I'm kind of an oddball though... I support the war, but I don't support putting troops on the ground. I think everything should be done with tactical missiles and keep friendly casualties at 0. I know this would never happen, but I just don't see any reason to occupy.
Most the people who voted for him and didn't want this also had no freakin idea what was going on in Afghanistan.
For the better part of the last three-four years there have been numerous outcries by the higher command in the US armed forces, as well as unified outrage from international military forces (especially Canada) about the rapidly deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and how the US was doing jack-all about it. There were many in-depth articles written about how the Taliban was slowly but quite surely getting more and more of an iron-grip over Afghanistan, and how the coalition forces were unable to do ANYthing. The shame is that a lot of people never heard these outcries because so much focus was wrongfully on Iraq. Obama never talked about putting a quick end to Afghanistan during his campaign precisely because of this; everyone who knew anything about the situation there knew we (the US) had fucked it up.
To me the real surprise is how long it took for Obama to actually move toward deployment, but I'm not familiar enough with the backdrop of this action to know why it took so long. Obviously part of the reason why it took so long is because we're not completely out of Iraq yet, but I'm also surprised he didn't make a major move in Afghanistan until this year-long "investigation" finished, despite how the high command had been requesting troops for so long. I just hope it's still a salvageable situation and that the troops we're putting in there now aren't too late.
By the way if you just THINK you know what's going on over there but you've never actually looked into it, do yourself a favour and go read up on it.
I would be pretty upset if i was an american. Why are your troops dying for that hellhole nation (afghanistan)? To put that corrupt puppet Karzhai in power?
It also took your president long enough to send backup. Its like a cop calling for backup, only to have his police chief say "ill get back to you in a few months"...
On December 02 2009 22:35 Daigomi wrote: I don't know much about politics (a conscious effort on my part to stay ignorant), but I find the reasoning people use to bash Obama to be strange. I mean, the statement that all presidents are lying fuckwits. That can either be caused by a biased process which leads to the selection of lying fuckwits as presidents, or, it can be caused by the fact that these presidents take responsibility for making the hardest decisions in the world, and if any decision they make contradicts anything that they have ever implied, they get ripped apart for it.
For example, with the TSL, we spent hours discussing the Nongmin situation before making a decision. We give our final decision (which is absolutely pathetically unimportant compared to the decisions presidents make) and we get accused of everything from being biased to being dishonest to outright abusing the system. All the rules we've made in the past suddenly get thrown back into our faces, and every mod comment made in the last 2 weeks is scrutinized for evidence of bias. I can honestly tell you, we made the decision which we believed to be the best and most fair in the circumstances. What makes you think that a president is any different? What does Obama gain from being a lying fuckwit? He definitely doesn't get the adoration of the people, and I can't see how it makes him richer (unless he owns tons of oil shares or something). Much more likely than him lying is that there are incredible pressures on him from all sides, and he is simply making the best decisions he can in the situation.
Also, since when is everybody a political genius? If we ignore the fact that Obama is president, the man is pretty fucking intelligent. I mean, he got a Harvard law degree (without having a parent who's been a past president to help him get in) and he was the head of the president of the Harvard Law Review which even I know of, and I don't study law. To anyone who's ever applied for positions like these, you'll know that getting them means you are pretty fucking amazing and intelligent. So we have a person who is pretty fucking amazing, who has every bit of relevant intel in the world, and you're sitting on the sidelines shouting at how bad his decisions are. Your primary source of information is probably the internet, the tv, or a political analyst who has a reason to dislike the president. I'm not saying that Obama is making great decisions, in fact, I have no idea what decisions he is making, I just don't know how people can be as convinced as they are that his decisions are bad.
Agreed. Also, that's the first time I've ever heard someone use the phrase "lying fuckwit" and I gotta say, I rofl'd irl.
On December 03 2009 03:33 modesT wrote: I would be pretty upset if i was an american. Why are your troops dying for that hellhole nation (afghanistan)? To put that corrupt puppet Karzhai in power?
It also took your president long enough to send backup. Imagine a cop calling for backup, only to have his police chief say "ill get back to you in a few months".
I'm only upset that it took so long (cough Bush cough) for the government to realize how f-ed up Afghanistan had become and then start acting on it, instead of moan moan moan about Iraq all the time.
By the way our (and those of many, many other countries; I think the country that has the most casualties in Afghan is Canada, but I'm not sure about that 100%) troops are dying for that hellhole nation because it's the center of power for a fundamentalist group that has, is, and will continue to fire off terrorism in a myriad of countries. As he said, it's not just the US (9/11, shoebomber, etc.) but many bombings in London, Madrid, etc. that are borne out of here. Also Afghanistan (like Iraq) is a training-ground for international terrorists and combat groups right now. It's Che Guevarra's dream right there at the moment, as many rogue groups of violence tend to send "fresh meat" to Afghan for training.
I'm not going to take a stance one way or another on Obamas decision BUT keep one thing in mind...
As the President of the United States, Obama has access to information vastly beyond what we know, and what the public in general knows. Often we will see Presidents change their opinion on issues once they get into office. Perhaps they have new people whispering in their ears? Dunno. But one thing i'd bet on is the fact they have a wealth of new information to base their decisions on which will result on, sometimes, strange choices in our eyes.
Since every single person here is talking from at least partial, all the way up to complete, ignorance makes debating this pretty moot.
Having said that, the apparent corruption in the new Afghan government is pretty disturbing. If it was up to me, we'd just leave and let them figure it out themselves. If we are worried about Pak/Taliban issues, we will step into Pak when the issue comes up and not before.
On December 03 2009 03:33 modesT wrote: I would be pretty upset if i was an american. Why are your troops dying for that hellhole nation (afghanistan)? To put that corrupt puppet Karzhai in power?
It also took your president long enough to send backup. Imagine a cop calling for backup, only to have his police chief say "ill get back to you in a few months".
I'm only upset that it took so long (cough Bush cough) for the government to realize how f-ed up Afghanistan had become and then start acting on it, instead of moan moan moan about Iraq all the time.
By the way our (and those of many, many other countries; I think the country that has the most casualties in Afghan is Canada, but I'm not sure about that 100%) troops are dying for that hellhole nation because it's the center of power for a fundamentalist group that has, is, and will continue to fire off terrorism in a myriad of countries. As he said, it's not just the US (9/11, shoebomber, etc.) but many bombings in London, Madrid, etc. that are borne out of here. Also Afghanistan (like Iraq) is a training-ground for international terrorists and combat groups right now. It's Che Guevarra's dream right there at the moment, as many rogue groups of violence tend to send "fresh meat" to Afghan for training.
So bomb the training grounds by air. No need to make your men fight like people fought in the 18th century on the ground, dieing to homemade bombs.
Add to the fact that most troops there have suicide rules of engagements. For example they're not allowed to engage the enemy if he's with a woman, or in a mosque etc.
The problem is that the Taliban have no centralized location; I'm surprised the coalition forces have actually taken out so many high-ranked people, although they're probably like zerglings (one down, next one fills the slot). There are no "training grounds" because the training they receive is via direct combat with coalition forces. And by direct combat we're talking constant guerilla warfare, taking advantage of the fact that it's impossible to distinguish ally vs enemy. Frankly, Afghanistan right now is like Vietnam 2.0. The reason why we need more troops? For every village the coalition forces free, the Taliban take back two others, and when we move troops back to the other villages to help them out, we 1) lose the village we just took 2) they slide in more insurgents into the village, so they get free ambush etc.
Not to mention the shattered supply lines, the lack of consistency, the evisceration of trust from the villagers to the coalition forces (if they get "freed" and the "Taliban" re-conquer, they're not gonna just be like "oh okay we been conquered," no they get treated like ass until the CFs show up again, at which point they're not so willing to help the CFs anymore because they'd rather not get re-conquered and have all their crap wrecked by the "Taliban."), etc. etc. etc.
In short, the problem in Afghanistan is that we're unable to take and HOLD ground. We're being forced to run around like one of those puzzles you see all the time, where if you hit one button to change its colour, all the buttons around switch colours too, and you're supposed to figure out how to make all the colours the colour you want (or at least minimize the # of colour you don't want)... and right now not only is that very difficult, but we have one turn while the opponent has three. Firing off tactical missiles not only is useless against indistinguishable enemies, but it only destroys, not cultivates.
Why is this a problem?
Unlike Vietnam, where the Saigon (I think their name was?) simply wanted a revolution and to put their own government in place, the "Taliban" are very much a threat to the world (as illustrated by their worldwide terrorist strikes), and they also happen to have infiltrated a country armed with nukes.
What on earth does it matter if Obama lied told the truth? That has absolutely nothing to do with the matters at hand and you're blinding yourself if you're arguing over something so meaningless.
The reality is that we're sending even more troops into a country we've killed thousands of people in and are currently occupying by military force.
Seriously, let's be realistic here. You had a 0% chance a president was going to be elected that would immediately end our occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. I voted for Obama myself, but it was a clear 'lesser of evils' vote in many ways.
On December 02 2009 12:02 motbob wrote: Anyone who thinks Obama is going back on his promises during the campaign wasn't paying attention during the debates. Obama repeatedly said that Bush made a mistake by focusing on Iraq at the expense of Afghanistan.
I think Obama believes that we can find the same wild success in Afghanistan that we've had in Iraq the past few years.
Maybe im stupid and that was blatant sarcasm, cuz if not damn.. ...
There's a huge dropoff in U.S. casualties ever since Petraeus started getting his way with the surge. His strategy worked really well and we're doing a lot better in Iraq than we used to.
I just wanted to respond to you in general here, motbob. You seem to have a very short-sighted view of this topic which extends only to the revisionist history created by our last president. There is no justifiable purpose for our presence in Iraq. Putting things into perspective, there should have never been a single US casualty in Iraq in the first place, and the dropoff would have been reduced to 0 if we had left instead of added more troops.
The interesting thing is that Iraq would have likely been more stable in both cases. We're so sickeningly elitist thinking that we needed to stay (even when public opinion was finally against the war) because the Iraqis would be incapable of maintaining stability. Of course it would be difficult, considering we destroyed their entire infrastructure, but what makes us think we can (or have the right to) do it in place of them?
At the least, I think you should reconsider your rhetoric in calling Iraq a 'wild success' or anything even close to that. It's extremely insulting to the many, many people who have died for no purpose whatsoever. And sadly, we don't even really know how many they number since we've either been undercounting or completely negligent toward civilian casualties since day 1.
On December 03 2009 03:41 On_Slaught wrote: I'm not going to take a stance one way or another on Obamas decision BUT keep one thing in mind...
As the President of the United States, Obama has access to information vastly beyond what we know, and what the public in general knows. Often we will see Presidents change their opinion on issues once they get into office. Perhaps they have new people whispering in their ears? Dunno. But one thing i'd bet on is the fact they have a wealth of new information to base their decisions on which will result on, sometimes, strange choices in our eyes.
Since every single person here is talking from at least partial, all the way up to complete, ignorance makes debating this pretty moot.
This is the kind of nonsense that caused the Iraq War in the first place. People believed Bush because he supposedly had some evidence and intelligence that none of us could have, being the president. Of course, it all turned out to be lies, but why try to learn something from the situation? Let's just call him a bad apple and continue believing the general public cannot make educated decisions on foreign policy.
On December 03 2009 05:40 QibingZero wrote: Let's just call him a bad apple and continue believing the general public cannot make educated decisions on foreign policy.
Mostly because of what I have seen produced by the initiative system in Ohio, I doubt the ability of the general public to make an educated decision on any matter of policy.
A foriegn policy of non-intervention is the only policy worth debating. It is my opinion that it should not be America's job to play peace keeper for the world. Our dollar is weakening(it's only worth 4 cents) with the burden being placed on the tax payer. Call me crazy but I hate knowing my tax money is being used to send American's to they're death's. Not to mention all of the innocent people that have been killed on the other side. And we wonder why Muslims dislike the West.
There is no clear objective any more in Afghanistan, maybe there never was one to begin with. If we did have an objective there would have been a declaration of war. "We're going to get the bad guy's and promote democracy!" isn't a good answer. What the U.S. gov. is doing is nation building(a.k.a. puppet gov), which is also just a nicer word for Imperialism. Anyone here who think's we need to finish the fight just to save face...you are so immature I don't even know if I should feel sorry for you. There is no end to justify the mean's for why we should send more troops to the Middle east. Bring our brother's and sister's home.
i think Afghanistan has an extremely interesting war history which can be followed almost from the begining of civilization. It took Alexander roughly 3 years to defeat the largest empire till his time(Persia) then took him 4 years of brutal warfare and in the end genocide to reach some sort of ceasefire with the afghan tribes. Also its worth mentioning that in recent times the most powerful land army in the world in it's time (The Red Army had 64000 operational tanks in 1981, a numberthat to my knowledge has yet to be surpassed) broke it's teeth in afghanistan, which probably had to do alot with the American's "secretely" training afghans in all kinds of nasty guerilla warfare, which has come to bite them in the ass apparently since they're now sending 30000 more troops to fight the guys they trained 30 years ago. O a side note i think anybody who wants talk about American foreign policy should atleast read some of Chomsky's work even if he ends up disagreeing with him, Ifyou want to educate yourself on a subject it's a good idea to see what one of the world's leading intellectuals has to say about it first i think.
I just wanted to respond to you in general here, motbob. You seem to have a very short-sighted view of this topic which extends only to the revisionist history created by our last president. There is no justifiable purpose for our presence in Iraq. Putting things into perspective, there should have never been a single US casualty in Iraq in the first place, and the dropoff would have been reduced to 0 if we had left instead of added more troops.
The interesting thing is that Iraq would have likely been more stable in both cases. We're so sickeningly elitist thinking that we needed to stay (even when public opinion was finally against the war) because the Iraqis would be incapable of maintaining stability. Of course it would be difficult, considering we destroyed their entire infrastructure, but what makes us think we can (or have the right to) do it in place of them?
Although I don't entirely agree with the rosey descriptions of how successful Iraq has become, it is a mistake to confuse recognizing the gains from the surge and a generally supportive stance on the war. The difference in Iraq before and after the surge was pretty remarkable. You can be a complete pacifist and recognize this. At this point arguments about why we should or shouldn't have went into Iraq (there is a long history of posts on the subject here) are not very relevant. The only practical questions are about what to do from here, and in relation to Afghanistan it is if the surge that was implemented in Iraq can be applied to Afghanistan. Virtually everyone involved agrees that the answer is no, which is exactly why there has been debate. Counter insurgency is very specific to local regions, and there can be a good argument made that the success in Iraq was not typical. The debate about increasing troop levels has been very open, and there have been a lot of informed people communicating/educating people on the situation. If you want to have a real conversation about Obama's decision, it should include more options than simply packing up and leaving. There is a difference between a debate about war strategies, and a debate about the virtues of war. This is ultimately a debate about war strategies, so making arguments about the virtues of war are out of place and not very timely.
I just wanted to respond to you in general here, motbob. You seem to have a very short-sighted view of this topic which extends only to the revisionist history created by our last president. There is no justifiable purpose for our presence in Iraq. Putting things into perspective, there should have never been a single US casualty in Iraq in the first place, and the dropoff would have been reduced to 0 if we had left instead of added more troops.
The interesting thing is that Iraq would have likely been more stable in both cases. We're so sickeningly elitist thinking that we needed to stay (even when public opinion was finally against the war) because the Iraqis would be incapable of maintaining stability. Of course it would be difficult, considering we destroyed their entire infrastructure, but what makes us think we can (or have the right to) do it in place of them?
Although I don't entirely agree with the rosey descriptions of how successful Iraq has become, it is a mistake to confuse recognizing the gains from the surge and a generally supportive stance on the war. The difference in Iraq before and after the surge was pretty remarkable. You can be a complete pacifist and recognize this. At this point arguments about why we should or shouldn't have went into Iraq (there is a long history of posts on the subject here) are not very relevant. The only practical questions are about what to do from here, and in relation to Afghanistan it is if the surge that was implemented in Iraq can be applied to Afghanistan. Virtually everyone involved agrees that the answer is no, which is exactly why there has been debate. Counter insurgency is very specific to local regions, and there can be a good argument made that the success in Iraq was not typical. The debate about increasing troop levels has been very open, and there have been a lot of informed people communicating/educating people on the situation. If you want to have a real conversation about Obama's decision, it should include more options than simply packing up and leaving. There is a difference between a debate about war strategies, and a debate about the virtues of war. This is ultimately a debate about war strategies, so making arguments about the virtues of war are out of place and not very timely.
You've not actually made any case for why ending the war/occupation is not an option. Why should it not be? The framework you're arguing around is faulty. You say 'There's a war, how do we win it?', while I say 'There's a war, how do we end it?'. Or more precisely: 'What is the best way to reduce the suffering and death we're causing?'. So my answer to that is most certainly not to add even more troops into a country that already does not approve of our presence.
Everyone is quick to claim the Iraq surge 'worked', but it only worked if you're asking the wrong question in the first place. In my mind, it failed because it continued our illegal and unwanted occupation of a foreign country. It failed because it didn't even take into account why our soldiers in Iraq were coming under fire in the first place. It failed because it didn't recognize that Islamic terrorist attacks against the US were occurring because we have been meddling in the Middle East for years and years, and that more US presence only makes things worse for peace in the long run.
Of course, it's not that obvious to the establishment, because they feel they only need to do what is in America's best interests (in regard to it's power). Our foreign policy is seemingly forever taken in regards to 'us against them'. So their question is instead 'How can we make the most of this situation we have in Iraq/Afghanistan?'. Then they respond in kind. These type of questions are called 'grown-up' questions which assume that war and violence are necessary parts of human relations. And with that mindset, it plays out just as you'd expect.
Honestly, I am in favor of Obama's plan to send more troops, however, anyone who doesn't think that this is a blow to Obama's presidency is delusional.
The war overseas is expensive to run and America has been losing some of its foreign support. The plans that the Bush administration had doctored up detailed a scale back of the war effort by 2010, however, following the wake of the corruption in the Afghanistan elections earlier this year, the situation has taken a huge turn for the worse. Many of the private citizens in the more remote regions of Afghanistan have begun turning towards the Taliban for protection, the exact opposite of what we desired.
Now Obama is faced with the problem of running an escalating war effort in the face of Middle East tensions that have risen since the start of the Obama administration, particularly with regards to the Iran issue that took the spotlight a couple of months ago. This war effort will be costly and will surely detract from the public opinion of Obama.
Some people in this thread have commented that Obama is doing a good job because he has a planned date to start scaling back. But the truth is that our previous plans called for a military scale prior to the new planned date. And the worst part for Obama is that, while he had no control over the corruption in the Afghan elections, his inattentiveness to the situation is partially responsible for this crisis. Inattentiveness you say? As of September of 2009, Obama had only had exactly one meeting with his top military advisors to dictate the course of the war effort. (Source: Washington Post reporter Rajiv Chandrasekaran's appearance on Charlie Rose in September -- note: please do not post in reply to me without knowing who Charlie Rose is; that's like not knowing who McLaughlin is). Luckily for Obama, the media still views him favorably (had that been Bush, word of this failing would have created an enormous public relations disaster).
As I said, this is a huge setback to Obama's administration, but it's a necessary involvement. I would criticize that Obama's original objectives in Afghanistan were perhaps too broad reaching, but there's nothing he could have done about the Afghan elections, which served as the catalyst for the current situation and the true harbringer of the recent escalations in violence.
I just wanted to respond to you in general here, motbob. You seem to have a very short-sighted view of this topic which extends only to the revisionist history created by our last president. There is no justifiable purpose for our presence in Iraq. Putting things into perspective, there should have never been a single US casualty in Iraq in the first place, and the dropoff would have been reduced to 0 if we had left instead of added more troops.
The interesting thing is that Iraq would have likely been more stable in both cases. We're so sickeningly elitist thinking that we needed to stay (even when public opinion was finally against the war) because the Iraqis would be incapable of maintaining stability. Of course it would be difficult, considering we destroyed their entire infrastructure, but what makes us think we can (or have the right to) do it in place of them?
Although I don't entirely agree with the rosey descriptions of how successful Iraq has become, it is a mistake to confuse recognizing the gains from the surge and a generally supportive stance on the war. The difference in Iraq before and after the surge was pretty remarkable. You can be a complete pacifist and recognize this. At this point arguments about why we should or shouldn't have went into Iraq (there is a long history of posts on the subject here) are not very relevant. The only practical questions are about what to do from here, and in relation to Afghanistan it is if the surge that was implemented in Iraq can be applied to Afghanistan. Virtually everyone involved agrees that the answer is no, which is exactly why there has been debate. Counter insurgency is very specific to local regions, and there can be a good argument made that the success in Iraq was not typical. The debate about increasing troop levels has been very open, and there have been a lot of informed people communicating/educating people on the situation. If you want to have a real conversation about Obama's decision, it should include more options than simply packing up and leaving. There is a difference between a debate about war strategies, and a debate about the virtues of war. This is ultimately a debate about war strategies, so making arguments about the virtues of war are out of place and not very timely.
You've not actually made any case for why ending the war/occupation is not an option. Why should it not be? The framework you're arguing around is faulty. You say 'There's a war, how do we win it?', while I say 'There's a war, how do we end it?'. Or more precisely: 'What is the best way to reduce the suffering and death we're causing?'. So my answer to that is most certainly not to add even more troops into a country that already does not approve of our presence.
The real issue isn't what will end the war in the short term, but what is the best long term solution towards peace and stablity.
I agree that in retrospect that Iraq war was a huge mistake, but hindsight is twenty-twenty, and I supported it at the time based on what I knew.
But regardless of your beliefs of whether the Iraq war was right or wrong, once we entered that country and toppled the government, we created a power vacuum, and the Middle East powers that stepped in to fill it were ones that I think quite clearly we would not want there. The decision to enter Iraq was a decision of choice, but the decision to stay and, at the very least, establish a capable force of Iraqi defenders (drawing from the local population) was one born of necessity. You're thinking in terms of just one country invading another, but in truth, once we invaded, and once there no longer was Saddam Hussein's regime in place, al Qaeda slipped in. (Yes, I am actually saying that Hussein had been doing something beneficial to us -- the exact opposite of what Bush had claimed -- and was keeping al Qaeda out of his country.) Leaving Iraq then would have caused yet more deaths and given al Qaeda more power. Are you saying that's okay because those deaths would not have been American soldiers?
I do not think we have a choice in our presence. What I do think is that our goals have been too broad reaching. The elimination of the al Qaeda threat is supposedly our main purpose over seas, but I see that issue as getting drowned out in the politics. Our main focus has been occupation when it should have been much more narrow. Al Qaeda is the threat that chose to take the fight to us; they are the threat we should be focusing on. Instead we practice the same strategies we did in Vietnam.
Regarding the point of whether the Iraq war was right or wrong, I do want to say one more thing. It's easy for us to say we shouldn't be there, but we are. We cannot change the past, only make the best decisions to influence the future.
If we could change our past policies, September 11th would never have "had" to happen. Our one-sided Middle East policy and fundamental prejudice towards Arab people (particularly in light of Arab-Israeli tensions) is largely responsible for creating the beast known as al Qaeda to begin with.
Our Middle East policy has always been a joke. It's imperialistic nonsense and it should have stopped decades ago. Pols just rely on the general public's military warfever, prejudice and blind patriotism to get away with whatever they want. And the same people who stand behind spending a trillion bucks in Iraq stand against health care availability to all citizens. Go figure. Retards
I just wanted to respond to you in general here, motbob. You seem to have a very short-sighted view of this topic which extends only to the revisionist history created by our last president. There is no justifiable purpose for our presence in Iraq. Putting things into perspective, there should have never been a single US casualty in Iraq in the first place, and the dropoff would have been reduced to 0 if we had left instead of added more troops.
The interesting thing is that Iraq would have likely been more stable in both cases. We're so sickeningly elitist thinking that we needed to stay (even when public opinion was finally against the war) because the Iraqis would be incapable of maintaining stability. Of course it would be difficult, considering we destroyed their entire infrastructure, but what makes us think we can (or have the right to) do it in place of them?
Although I don't entirely agree with the rosey descriptions of how successful Iraq has become, it is a mistake to confuse recognizing the gains from the surge and a generally supportive stance on the war. The difference in Iraq before and after the surge was pretty remarkable. You can be a complete pacifist and recognize this. At this point arguments about why we should or shouldn't have went into Iraq (there is a long history of posts on the subject here) are not very relevant. The only practical questions are about what to do from here, and in relation to Afghanistan it is if the surge that was implemented in Iraq can be applied to Afghanistan. Virtually everyone involved agrees that the answer is no, which is exactly why there has been debate. Counter insurgency is very specific to local regions, and there can be a good argument made that the success in Iraq was not typical. The debate about increasing troop levels has been very open, and there have been a lot of informed people communicating/educating people on the situation. If you want to have a real conversation about Obama's decision, it should include more options than simply packing up and leaving. There is a difference between a debate about war strategies, and a debate about the virtues of war. This is ultimately a debate about war strategies, so making arguments about the virtues of war are out of place and not very timely.
You've not actually made any case for why ending the war/occupation is not an option. Why should it not be? The framework you're arguing around is faulty. You say 'There's a war, how do we win it?', while I say 'There's a war, how do we end it?'. Or more precisely: 'What is the best way to reduce the suffering and death we're causing?'. So my answer to that is most certainly not to add even more troops into a country that already does not approve of our presence.
Everyone is quick to claim the Iraq surge 'worked', but it only worked if you're asking the wrong question in the first place. In my mind, it failed because it continued our illegal and unwanted occupation of a foreign country. It failed because it didn't even take into account why our soldiers in Iraq were coming under fire in the first place. It failed because it didn't recognize that Islamic terrorist attacks against the US were occurring because we have been meddling in the Middle East for years and years, and that more US presence only makes things worse for peace in the long run.
Of course, it's not that obvious to the establishment, because they feel they only need to do what is in America's best interests (in regard to it's power). Our foreign policy is seemingly forever taken in regards to 'us against them'. So their question is instead 'How can we make the most of this situation we have in Iraq/Afghanistan?'. Then they respond in kind. These type of questions are called 'grown-up' questions which assume that war and violence are necessary parts of human relations. And with that mindset, it plays out just as you'd expect.
I didn't make the case primarily because it was not an option that was on the table. I understand that your point is that it should be on the table, but the simple fact is that it wasn't. There are domestic political considerations as to why is wasn't, but I assume those are irrelevant to your position. There are global political considerations that are relevant that you should consider, plus the regional conflict could potentially cause security issues, if not for then for Pakistan.
Politically, we had complete support to go into Afghanistan. This is not a situation like Iraq where there was no real legitimacy to the invasion. We had international support and complete domestic support. The is not a situation where we were "meddling". Pakistan, one of the few countries that recognized the Taliban, was also one the the first to support our invasion and has been our strongest ally in the country (this is a debatable relationship, but I feel the fact remains). There has not been any significant outcry to our role there absent Islamic extremist damning our every move. Most of the criticism we have received has been for putting Afghanistan on the back burner while the Taliban gained strength. We got the same criticism for not investing in Afghanistan after the Soviets left. Packing up and leaving Afghanistan is part of the reason why it is a mess now to begin with. This is not just an argument of responsibility, but one of perception. It is perceived that our interest in the Middle East are entirely self serving, and hence we are just "meddling". Backing out of Afghanistan with no regard to how we leave the country will only support that argument.
There are real security concerns with leaving Afghanistan without accomplishing a bare minimum level of stability. The taliban have regained strength and would quickly regain control over much of the country. This will give more training ground and operational breathing room for extremist groups, and will further destabilize Pakistan. The effective collapse of Pakistan is widely considered one of the biggest potential threats to our security. What would actually happen to the region if we just got up and left, as you propose, is mostly speculation, but the costs of leaving could potentially be as high or higher than staying. What if we left, Pakistan was on the verge of collapse and extremists were able to run an organization out of the region capable of attacking western countries? Would we have to re mobilize? How could we gain trust of the people after backing out on them? How could we gain the trust of Pakistan? Would it be easier to just finish the job while we are there?
The mistake we made wasn't Obama increasing our troop levels, it was going into Iraq rather than investing in Afghanistan's infrastructure and helping to create a stable government. Now its time to face the facts. My intention is not to create a gung-ho argument for war, but rather point out the fact that the situation is more complicated than you have it appear, and that the leaders making the decisions are much more informed and smarter than you give them credit for. As I said in my earlier post, I don't know exactly what the best strategy should be, but I trust the people making the decisions. You said the question should be about "how do we end it". Well, this is how we end it. Lets hope it works.
I just wanted to respond to you in general here, motbob. You seem to have a very short-sighted view of this topic which extends only to the revisionist history created by our last president. There is no justifiable purpose for our presence in Iraq. Putting things into perspective, there should have never been a single US casualty in Iraq in the first place, and the dropoff would have been reduced to 0 if we had left instead of added more troops.
The interesting thing is that Iraq would have likely been more stable in both cases. We're so sickeningly elitist thinking that we needed to stay (even when public opinion was finally against the war) because the Iraqis would be incapable of maintaining stability. Of course it would be difficult, considering we destroyed their entire infrastructure, but what makes us think we can (or have the right to) do it in place of them?
Although I don't entirely agree with the rosey descriptions of how successful Iraq has become, it is a mistake to confuse recognizing the gains from the surge and a generally supportive stance on the war. The difference in Iraq before and after the surge was pretty remarkable. You can be a complete pacifist and recognize this. At this point arguments about why we should or shouldn't have went into Iraq (there is a long history of posts on the subject here) are not very relevant. The only practical questions are about what to do from here, and in relation to Afghanistan it is if the surge that was implemented in Iraq can be applied to Afghanistan. Virtually everyone involved agrees that the answer is no, which is exactly why there has been debate. Counter insurgency is very specific to local regions, and there can be a good argument made that the success in Iraq was not typical. The debate about increasing troop levels has been very open, and there have been a lot of informed people communicating/educating people on the situation. If you want to have a real conversation about Obama's decision, it should include more options than simply packing up and leaving. There is a difference between a debate about war strategies, and a debate about the virtues of war. This is ultimately a debate about war strategies, so making arguments about the virtues of war are out of place and not very timely.
You've not actually made any case for why ending the war/occupation is not an option. Why should it not be? The framework you're arguing around is faulty. You say 'There's a war, how do we win it?', while I say 'There's a war, how do we end it?'. Or more precisely: 'What is the best way to reduce the suffering and death we're causing?'. So my answer to that is most certainly not to add even more troops into a country that already does not approve of our presence.
The real issue isn't what will end the war in the short term, but what is the best long term solution towards peace and stablity.
I agree that in retrospect that Iraq war was a huge mistake, but hindsight is twenty-twenty, and I supported it at the time based on what I knew.
But regardless of your beliefs of whether the Iraq war was right or wrong, once we entered that country and toppled the government, we created a power vacuum, and the Middle East powers that stepped in to fill it were ones that I think quite clearly we would not want there. The decision to enter Iraq was a decision of choice, but the decision to stay and, at the very least, establish a capable force of Iraqi defenders (drawing from the local population) was one born of necessity. You're thinking in terms of just one country invading another, but in truth, once we invaded, and once there no longer was Saddam Hussein's regime in place, al Qaeda slipped in. (Yes, I am actually saying that Hussein had been doing something beneficial to us -- the exact opposite of what Bush had claimed -- and was keeping al Qaeda out of his country.) Leaving Iraq then would have caused yet more deaths and given al Qaeda more power. Are you saying that's okay because those deaths would not have been American soldiers?
The problem with this idea is that it assumes some kind of American exceptionalism. It assumes that we were the only ones that could help the poor Iraqis rebuild their country. As if we were somehow actually stabilizing Iraq, even though our presence is causing immense bloodshed years after we bombed the shit out of the place. There is a direct parallel to imperialism here - so much so that it's impossible not to mention it. "Here, savages, this is a gun. And see that over there? That's called democracy. I know you don't know what it is because we've only let dictators and monarchs rule your country for it's entire existence, but we'll show you since we're so nice."
If we actually wanted to help out, but feared even more problems would occur by leaving, we'd have allowed a UN peacekeeping force in (the same applies to Afghanistan). This way, it would be clear that there were no special interests involved and that America was not attempting any sort of power grab or installation of a puppet regime. The people of the countries themselves would be happier, and likely safer. You know, we might drown out the news reports by this time, but even in Iraq people are still dying every single day from violence. And we have the audacity to boast about the surge working because US lives were saved.
I do not think we have a choice in our presence. What I do think is that our goals have been too broad reaching. The elimination of the al Qaeda threat is supposedly our main purpose over seas, but I see that issue as getting drowned out in the politics. Our main focus has been occupation when it should have been much more narrow. Al Qaeda is the threat that chose to take the fight to us; they are the threat we should be focusing on. Instead we practice the same strategies we did in Vietnam.
Yes, in the sense that we were supposed to be after Al Qaeda, we've failed. However, that was clearly never the original goal (as shown by the failure to 'finish the job' on bin Laden). But the important thing here is that the idea of fighting a multinational terrorist group by force is flawed to begin with. Fighting it by actually invading Arab countries (the main qualm Islamic terrorists had with us in the first place) is pure insanity. We've done nothing but allow them new recruitment tools, and plenty of angry people who feel wronged when, you know, we drop a bomb on their families.
I'm sure you realize some of this, but the ideas are very much intertwined. We're not actually improving our image in the Muslim world by staying there. If anything, it solidifies their idea that we've come only to pillage their land and defile their religion.
I just wanted to respond to you in general here, motbob. You seem to have a very short-sighted view of this topic which extends only to the revisionist history created by our last president. There is no justifiable purpose for our presence in Iraq. Putting things into perspective, there should have never been a single US casualty in Iraq in the first place, and the dropoff would have been reduced to 0 if we had left instead of added more troops.
The interesting thing is that Iraq would have likely been more stable in both cases. We're so sickeningly elitist thinking that we needed to stay (even when public opinion was finally against the war) because the Iraqis would be incapable of maintaining stability. Of course it would be difficult, considering we destroyed their entire infrastructure, but what makes us think we can (or have the right to) do it in place of them?
Although I don't entirely agree with the rosey descriptions of how successful Iraq has become, it is a mistake to confuse recognizing the gains from the surge and a generally supportive stance on the war. The difference in Iraq before and after the surge was pretty remarkable. You can be a complete pacifist and recognize this. At this point arguments about why we should or shouldn't have went into Iraq (there is a long history of posts on the subject here) are not very relevant. The only practical questions are about what to do from here, and in relation to Afghanistan it is if the surge that was implemented in Iraq can be applied to Afghanistan. Virtually everyone involved agrees that the answer is no, which is exactly why there has been debate. Counter insurgency is very specific to local regions, and there can be a good argument made that the success in Iraq was not typical. The debate about increasing troop levels has been very open, and there have been a lot of informed people communicating/educating people on the situation. If you want to have a real conversation about Obama's decision, it should include more options than simply packing up and leaving. There is a difference between a debate about war strategies, and a debate about the virtues of war. This is ultimately a debate about war strategies, so making arguments about the virtues of war are out of place and not very timely.
You've not actually made any case for why ending the war/occupation is not an option. Why should it not be? The framework you're arguing around is faulty. You say 'There's a war, how do we win it?', while I say 'There's a war, how do we end it?'. Or more precisely: 'What is the best way to reduce the suffering and death we're causing?'. So my answer to that is most certainly not to add even more troops into a country that already does not approve of our presence.
Everyone is quick to claim the Iraq surge 'worked', but it only worked if you're asking the wrong question in the first place. In my mind, it failed because it continued our illegal and unwanted occupation of a foreign country. It failed because it didn't even take into account why our soldiers in Iraq were coming under fire in the first place. It failed because it didn't recognize that Islamic terrorist attacks against the US were occurring because we have been meddling in the Middle East for years and years, and that more US presence only makes things worse for peace in the long run.
Of course, it's not that obvious to the establishment, because they feel they only need to do what is in America's best interests (in regard to it's power). Our foreign policy is seemingly forever taken in regards to 'us against them'. So their question is instead 'How can we make the most of this situation we have in Iraq/Afghanistan?'. Then they respond in kind. These type of questions are called 'grown-up' questions which assume that war and violence are necessary parts of human relations. And with that mindset, it plays out just as you'd expect.
I didn't make the case primarily because it was not an option that was on the table. I understand that your point is that it should be on the table, but the simple fact is that it wasn't. There are domestic political considerations as to why is wasn't, but I assume those are irrelevant to your position. There are global political considerations that are relevant that you should consider, plus the regional conflict could potentially cause security issues, if not for then for Pakistan.
Politically, we had complete support to go into Afghanistan. This is not a situation like Iraq where there was no real legitimacy to the invasion. We had international support and complete domestic support. The is not a situation where we were "meddling". Pakistan, one of the few countries that recognized the Taliban, was also one the the first to support our invasion and has been our strongest ally in the country (this is a debatable relationship, but I feel the fact remains). There has not been any significant outcry to our role there absent Islamic extremist damning our every move. Most of the criticism we have received has been for putting Afghanistan on the back burner while the Taliban gained strength. We got the same criticism for not investing in Afghanistan after the Soviets left. Packing up and leaving Afghanistan is part of the reason why it is a mess now to begin with. This is not just an argument of responsibility, but one of perception. It is perceived that our interest in the Middle East are entirely self serving, and hence we are just "meddling". Backing out of Afghanistan with no regard to how we leave the country will only support that argument.
Here's the problem with our 'coalition': we forced it. The US has a lot of leveraging power in the world, and generally if we throw our weight around we can get a decent amount of international support. It also helps that we could exploit the sympathy felt for 9/11, and that we're basically in command of NATO. And if you remember, not joining the US in any endeavor we ask has consequences. Remember the attacks on France and other countries when they didn't join us for our happy little Iraq outing? Remember the talking heads yelling about boycotts?
By the way, the populations of just about every coalition member state have been against their countries' involvement in Afghanistan for years now.
As for the Taliban gaining strength, you can look at it multiple ways. You choose to say we've been focused elsewhere, which in reality means we haven't been killing enough of them. I say that we are, as always, only focused on the end result and not how we got there. We've killed innumerable amounts of civilians in Afghanistan. What do the families and friends of these people think when we callously bomb wherever we think we see 'bad guys'? It's pretty clear that if the Taliban is gaining numbers, we're the ones causing them to do so. The cause is clear: not because we aren't killing enough, but because we're killing too many.
There are real security concerns with leaving Afghanistan without accomplishing a bare minimum level of stability. The taliban have regained strength and would quickly regain control over much of the country. This will give more training ground and operational breathing room for extremist groups, and will further destabilize Pakistan. The effective collapse of Pakistan is widely considered one of the biggest potential threats to our security. What would actually happen to the region if we just got up and left, as you propose, is mostly speculation, but the costs of leaving could potentially be as high or higher than staying. What if we left, Pakistan was on the verge of collapse and extremists were able to run an organization out of the region capable of attacking western countries? Would we have to re mobilize? How could we gain trust of the people after backing out on them? How could we gain the trust of Pakistan? Would it be easier to just finish the job while we are there?
You'll note my mention of American exceptionalism above in my response to Mortality. The same applies here.
An additional note is that we have far less to worry about if Pakistan becomes unstable than India, China, and other nearby countries do. Why is this about us and not them? And why is the rhetoric always 'finish the job', inferring the opposite of 'cut and run'? What job are we even finishing?
The mistake we made wasn't Obama increasing our troop levels, it was going into Iraq rather than investing in Afghanistan's infrastructure and helping to create a stable government. Now its time to face the facts. My intention is not to create a gung-ho argument for war, but rather point out the fact that the situation is more complicated than you have it appear, and that the leaders making the decisions are much more informed and smarter than you give them credit for. As I said in my earlier post, I don't know exactly what the best strategy should be, but I trust the people making the decisions. You said the question should be about "how do we end it". Well, this is how we end it. Lets hope it works.
I find no reason to trust the people involved here. If anything, the past 8 years have sent us the message that we should certainly not trust them. Hell, the entire history of Afghanistan warns us not to trust them when they suggest more troops will fix things. Why are we trusting people who fundamentally do not even attempt to understand the people whose countries we are currently occupying?
As for the Taliban gaining strength, you can look at it multiple ways. You choose to say we've been focused elsewhere, which in reality means we haven't been killing enough of them
It could mean that, or it could mean that we haven't gained enough trust of the population and provided enough security to make the Taliban ineffective. This is the exact objective of a COIN strategy.
I say that we are, as always, only focused on the end result and not how we got there. We've killed innumerable amounts of civilians in Afghanistan. What do the families and friends of these people think when we callously bomb wherever we think we see 'bad guys'? It's pretty clear that if the Taliban is gaining numbers, we're the ones causing them to do so. The cause is clear: not because we aren't killing enough, but because we're killing too many.
As mentioned the COIN strategy is focused on the population, not hunting down the insurgents. So I, as well as the political and military leaders involved, agree with you that we have killed to many civilians and that has negative repercussions. The strategy that you are arguing against is the strategy that most effectively deals with these points. A counter-terrorism focused strategy will continue to isolate the population from us, making it harder to marginalize the Taliban, and also make it harder for us to gain human intelligence on the ground. Leaving Afghanistan now will leave behind the resentment of smashing the country and then leave the population back in the hands of the Taliban.
An additional note is that we have far less to worry about if Pakistan becomes unstable than India, China, and other nearby countries do. Why is this about us and not them? And why is the rhetoric always 'finish the job', inferring the opposite of 'cut and run'? What job are we even finishing?
You did not address the security issues. Do you think they do not exist? You can't just ignore the issues or say that it is India or China's problem. Whether it is their problem or not, it is also our problem. What do you think would happen to the region if we left? I don't advocate "finishing the job" because it is not "cut and running", I advocate it because like you said, we need to end it and I think that would be the best way to end it.
I find no reason to trust the people involved here.
I trust the people involved because I have closely watched the debate. Obama, Gates, Petraeus, McCrystal, Kilkullen, Kagan, etc... are all people that I find to be very intelligent, informed, and have a track record of making good decisions.
I never intended to get into a tit for tat with you. Such things just derail threads and make them less interesting for everyone else. I have responded to you because I agree with your sentiment but find that you are either not informed on the details of the issues, or are just choosing to ignore them. I could make a strong argument for reasons to not get further involved Afghanistan, because a lot of good arguments have been proposed. But you have mentioned none of them, which leads me to believe you have not followed the issue and are just arguing against war itself. I am fine with that, but don't pretend that that proposes our best strategic options given the reality of the position we are in.