| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| Obama unveils sweeping new Afghan war strategy |
| 2009-03-28 |
| Unveiling a sweeping new strategy for the Afghan war -- US President Barack Obama warned on Friday that Al Qaeda was a cancer that could devour Pakistan. "Al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the US from safe havens in Pakistan ... to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is ... we will defeat you." "We will insist that action be taken ... one way or another," he said, indicating that the US would act on intelligence against terrorists if Pakistan does not. He said Pakistan and Afghanistan were inextricably linked. Obama said the US military would also shift the emphasis of its mission to training and expanding the Afghan army. Obama plans to send 4,000 more US soldiers to train the Afghan army, along with hundreds of civilian personnel. The US would also step up military and financial aid to Pakistan. "The situation is increasingly perilous," said Obama in a sombre speech. Obama said that together with the UN, the US would form a 'contact group' -- including Iran, Russia, India and China -- bringing together countries with a stake in the region's security. He said his strategy had one "clear and focused goal -- to disrupt, dismantle and eventually defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan". "For the American people, this border region has become the most dangerous place in the world ... the safety of the world is at stake." "This [area along Pak-Afghan border] almost certainly includes ... Osama Bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri ... Pakistan's government must be a stronger partner in destroying these safe havens," he said. Obama set no timetable for the strategy, but said the US would set benchmarks for the Afghan government. He said the key to defeating Al Qaeda was strengthening the civilian government of Pakistan. He said he would triple US aid to over five years and attempt to peel away more moderate Taliban factions. But he said, "We will not provide a blank check [to Pakistan]." Key points of afghan strategy * Disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda terrorists and their safe havens in Pakistan |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #13 No timeline? OMG, my buddies at MoveOn will be outraged! This is Obama's war, and he isn't giving peace a chance! He's expanding the war into Pakistan. But, Mikey Moore says that Pakistan didn't attack us on 9/11. So why would we kill poor, innocent, bunny-loving Pakis? Ooops, I just soiled my Depends. Time to login to Kos and order a new box. |
| Posted by: Omomoter Bucket6746 2009-03-28 22:21 |
| #12 "if Obama wants to be taken seriously" There's the problem right there, EU. Bambi is only interested in giving away the country. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2009-03-28 20:22 |
| #11 Maybe, we will get lucky and China and India will fight a proxy war over Afghanistan. That's the most optimistic scenario I have. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2009-03-28 19:47 |
| #10 Sounds like he recognizes the threat at least. But he's still frighteningly naive about how to deal with it. Right now I'm getting a real bad LBJ feeling about this. Just like China and Russia were the real problems in Vietnam, Pakistan is the real problem in Afghanistan. Talk about benchmarks for the Afghan government and strengthening the Pak government is completely unrealistic. The Pak government/ISI (Which one is calling the shots? Only they know for sure.) is the biggest enemy we have in that region and there will never be an Afghan government that can defend itself. Never has been and never will be. Trying to bring in the Iranians, Russians and Chinese also strikes me as being monumentally unrealistic. Why would they help us? They're too busy laughing at us. China wants to keep the Paks just like they are so they can be used against India. That's been their strategy all along. At least the Chinese are consistent. Finally, if Obama wants to be taken seriously there should be no more demoralizing talk about exit strategies. It makes me sick to think of our brave troops doing their duty over there without question while politicians like Obama try to make up their feeble minds. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2009-03-28 16:17 |
| #9 Thank you Grom! Check's in the mail for your insight! Also: I don't know WTF this mean's but I'd like to repeat it some it can become some sort of memcleche. Say "Thank you, Miz Rice". Thank you! Mr. Grom! |
| Posted by: Shipman 2009-03-28 14:36 |
| #8 That's exactly what I said about Clinton. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-03-28 13:25 |
| #7 Cost? A lot of wasted lives and treasure. Benefit? Banbi's a one termer. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2009-03-28 13:14 |
| #6 Verlaine---great comment, as usual! What always gets me with successive US administrations is the lack of clear strategic goals and objectives. They are the things that drive our actions. Nebulous statements about democracy, evil doers, securing peace is just so much pablum, with no disrespect to pablum. You develop your goals and objectives. You state them clearly, so the citizens understand what they are and the stakes involved. You make it clear to the world. Then everything else is a means to achieve those goals and objectives. People in the present and past administrations can talk but they cannot communicate. Or maybe they do not want to. And it is not getting any better. War strategy is not helpful if you do not have clearly stated strategic goals and objectives. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2009-03-28 12:52 |
| #5 Exactly, Glenmore. The key element to almost all foreign policy matters that is never, never discussed. And among the chief differences between unimpressive and generally ineffective putzes like Clinton (and, likely, Bambi) and, uh, that very unpopular guy we just had (and his father, WRT Kuwait). But one element puzzles me. Among the many many smart and successful major changes made during the Bush years - which were either ignored, or viciously attacked, or somehow a combo of both, as in this case - was a reorganization of how foreign aid is planned and allocated. The NGOs and other usual suspects in the brain-dead lefty gravy train, er, "development" community were outraged ("outraged, I say!") by the changes, naturally, which involved putting a priority on places that did something productive with the aid and showed some movement towards open/democratic systems (evil neocons!). So I'm wondering what the new crew is doing on this. Meanwhile, it all sounds reasonable, and of course is just more of the same, since what else are we going to do? I remain convinced that our interests in A'stan remain negative: prevent use as a safe haven by our enemies. Anything beyond/above that is gravy, and oughta be very very carefully weighed as to cost/benefit. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2009-03-28 12:09 |
| #4 #4 - I find your comment enlightening and would like to subscribe to your newsletter |
| Posted by: Frank G 2009-03-28 10:24 |
| #3 Quite reasonable in concept (though too vague & idealistic to be practical in places). But no strategy has any chance of working unless everyone (your troops, your allies and your enemies) believe you mean it and have the will to follow through. That 'will', or lack thereof, is going to be severely tested before the success of the strategy can be known. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2009-03-28 09:52 |
| #2 I'm sure it'll work. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2009-03-28 06:39 |
| #1 My sincere thanks to General Petreaus and his staff for the roadmap and handoff to United States National Security Advisor, General James Jones. Nice work gentlemen. Now let's see if Barry can properly execute. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-03-28 04:56 |